Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LOCHMADDY AND EAST LOCH TARBERT (IMPROVEMENT OF PIERS. ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lochmaddy and East Loch Tarbert (Improvement of Piers, etc.); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 4 December and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Reform

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the P.A. Management Consultants' report on the non-financial aspects of the proposed abolition of the metropolitan county councils, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The report is long on assertion and short on fact. I remain convinced that the proposals in the Local Government Bill will help to make local government more effective and more economical, without the need to impair the standards or the quality of services.

Mr. Fatchett: It comes well from the Government to talk about the report being long on assertion and short on fact. Is it not the case that the PA report concludes that if the Government go ahead with their proposals we shall have another change in local government structure within the next decade? Is it not the case also that the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was published this morning, shows that the Government's financial conclusions are incorrect? Against that background, would it not have been sensible for a prudent and non-dogmatic Government to establish a public inquiry? We now have dogma running ahead of common sense.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter questions.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman represents part of one of our great cities. Before 1974 the Leeds city corporation had all the powers of a former county borough. It was large, powerful, professional and effective. The hon.

Gentleman should be ashamed to imply that the corporation will not be able to provide the services which will be devolved to it in a better way than they are provided by West Yorkshire county council.

Mr. Tracey: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the posters which have appeared on hoardings in the latest stage of the multi-million pound propaganda campaign of the metropolitan counties and others have been pasted upside down? Does he agree that that is a fair reflection of the economic and other attitudes of the leaders of those councils?

Mr. Baker: The advertising campaign in London on behalf of the GLC and ILEA is at the ratepayers' expense and is a scandalous waste of ratepayers' money. The GLC will be spending about £7 million this year, which Mr. Livingstone thinks is peanuts. We do not have that sort of money to spend and we would not be allowed—[Interruption.] Our political budget on this issue is much more modest and we shall be spending a little of it tonight on a party political broadcast, when I shall be setting forth the reasons why Mr. Livingstone does want the GLC abolished.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House, including the Minister, that this question relates to the metropolitan counties. Question No. 3 relates to the Greater London council.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not the case that as a result of this legislation the provincial police will be controlled for at least three years directly from Whitehall? Is that not a constitutional aspect of the legislation which should be considered most carefully? It is certain that control will not be passed to Leeds, where it rested before 1974.

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience to the debate on this issue — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am about to do so. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether that matter should be considered carefully. I give him the assurance that it will be debated at length in Committee. As he rightly said, there are provisions to have precept and manpower controls for a transitional period of three years for the joint authorities.

Mr. Rippon: Before we get into detail, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have already begun the drafting of the amendments to the published Bill?

Mr. Baker: I have little doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will be of assistance to us in that respect.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the management consultants' report on the metropolitan counties says that the result of the Government's proposals will be to provide institutionalised conflict and a failure to co-ordinate— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, T am reading. I want to be accurate. What does the Minister say to his right hon. and hon. Friends who were reported in the Local Government Chronicle poll as being dissatisfied with the transfer of functions to joint boards?

Mr. Baker: These matters will be debated at length in Committee on the abolition Bill. The report was compiled from a series of interviews and questionnaires. The PA sent a questionnaire to all the metropolitan county


councillors. Not surprisingly, their reply was that they thought that their jobs were useful and their roles effective. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "They would, wouldn't they?"

Dr. Cunningham: As the Minister appears keen, for once, to refer to the facts, is it not true that the overwhelming burden of evidence submitted to the Government was against the proposals? Is it not a fact that the Government cannot substantiate their claims of financial savings? Is it not also a fact that, contrary to what he claimed, many of the services will not return to the boroughs or districts, but will go to quangos and joint boards? Are those not the facts?

Mr. Baker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that 75 per cent. of the services which are now the responsibility of the metropolitan counties and the GLC will become the responsibility of the successor lower-tier authorities.

House Building

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of houses to be started in 1985 in the public and private sectors.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): Total housing starts for England in 1983 were 187,000, of which 146,000 were in the private sector, the highest figure for 10 years. Housing starts in the first nine months of this year are slightly below those for the same period last year, but completions are up. It is not the practice to make forecasts for future years.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister not agree that the figures are a wholly inadequate response to the housing crisis facing the country? Can he explain why, with 250,000 construction workers unemployed and with housing authorities such as mine in Stoke-on-Trent desperately anxious to build more houses, especially for the growing elderly population, the Government will not put in more finance and will not even allow local authorities to borrow money in the market place through their housing investment programmes?

Mr. Gow: Total capital housing provision in the public sector for next year is in excess of £3 billion. That is a substantial figure. The hon. Gentleman and the House must understand that a growing proportion of our people —now 63 per cent. in England—are owner-occupiers. The policy which the Government have followed has responded to the needs and aspirations of the people, while continuing to make substantial provision for public sector housing.

Mr. Hunter: Is there not a significant and laudable reason for the slightly fewer housing starts; namely, that under this Government local authorities have been able to provide more resources for special needs housing and for improvements?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right. Within the housing investment programme allocations it is for each authority to decide its own priorities. I agree with my hon. friend that priority should be given to the categories that he mentioned.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister remind us of the number of people on the housing waiting list, how many are homeless and how many are living in houses unfit for human habitation?

Mr. Gow: Some of the figures for local authority housing waiting lists are the reverse of accurate. Those figures should be revised in very many cases. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Lady's question.

Mr. Brando-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that private sector starts would be substantially higher if it were not for the fact that many Labour authorities hoard and sit on land for building because they believe that private sector building is bad and that only public sector building is good?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made his first directions for the sale of unused or under-used land, as recorded on the registers which the Government introduced. Of the land on those four sites, 45 acres are suitable for housing. I certainly intend to follow up the Government's initiative of directing, where appropriate, the sale of unused or under-used land.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister think it desirable that the total of housing starts, whatever their mix, should return to the number for the lowest year under the Labour Government?

Mr. Gow: That depends on need.

Sporting, Recreational and Leisure Facilities

Mr. Pendry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the sporting, recreational and leisure provision currently made by the Greater London council and metropolitan counties will continue following abolition of those authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): As I said in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 21 November, my right hon. Friend announced on 11 April our plans for sport and recreation following the dissolution of the GLC. Responsibility for these matters will pass to the boroughs. The Sports Council will have additional funds to assist with projects of wider than local interest.

Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister recognise that that is a complacent reply which will disappoint hundreds of thousands of people who live within the Greater London council and metropolitan council areas and who look to him to fight his corner on their behalf to ensure that sport and recreation provision is maintained after abolition? Does he further recognise that the GLC has spent more than £40 million on that provision and that the metropolitan counties have spent an equivalent sum? Why does the hon. Gentleman not take note of the action of his colleague the Minister for the Arts, who is fighting his corner for those whom he represents? If the Minister did that, perhaps even he would end up in the Cabinet.

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little over-excited about some matters. If he looks at the record for recent years he will find that since 1979 the Government have increased grant-in-aid by 100 per cent. to the Sports Council, and have provided infinitely more


money than previous Governments did for the urban aid programme—between £16 million and £23 million in the past few years.
Only in the last 12 to 18 months has the GLC started to show some interest in sport in the metropolis. The London boroughs and the metropolitan districts are infinitely better prepared to know what is required at local level. The GLC has only come along later to shell out our constituents' money for wrong projects.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend assure me that, whoever controls sport and recreation in London, better facilities and coaching will be provided in order to improve the standard of English cricket?

Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of what my hon. Friend said. He has experience of these matters. I have no doubt that he is well satisfied with the standard of Scottish rugby. Let us hope that that will be enacted next week.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of the spectre of rate-capping that hangs over the London boroughs and metropolitan districts, will the Minister assure the House that grant-related expenditure assessments for the London boroughs and metropolitan districts will be altered to guarantee them the resources needed to provide the leisure, recreation and sports facilities now provided by the GLC and metropolitan counties?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. That is why the Government have ensured that the funding for sport and recreation has not been lost in recent years. Normal adjustments to the rate support grant will be made after abolition. However, I have to tell the House that no specific increase will be introduced solely in respect of sport and recreation. These matters will be adjusted.

Mr. Moynihan: I recognise the importance of providing sport and leisure facilities in London, but does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial amount of work has already been done, and is planned to continue to be done, by the boroughs, the governing bodies and, above all, the Sports Council?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is right. The strategy which has been produced by the Sports Council and the regional councils on sports and recreation, which will be able to take on a great deal of work after abolition in March 1986, has been responsible for identifying the paucity of facilities in certain areas.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that much of the assistance given by the metropolitan counties comes from sponsored companies, such as Merseyside Improvements Ltd., which not only provide jobs, but work to a reasonable standard for many of the sporting organisations? Can the Minister guarantee that those organisations will continue to be provided with such assistance after the abolition of the metropolitan county councils?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am always anxious to encourage sponsorship of any sort for anything to do with sport, leisure and recreation, and it is precisely because of the Government's policies that we have been able to rejuvenate that on Merseyside.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that in West Yorkshire county council area, and no doubt in many others, some metropolitan districts have no representatives

on committees responsible for many important functions, and that that could not be the case following abolition? As surveys have shown that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea which functions are the responsibility of the metropolitan county councils, is not existing democratic responsibility a myth, and is it not far more likely to exist after abolition?

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not believe that it is far more likely to exist. My right hon. and hon. Friends will consider that important point to ensure that there is no gap after abolition.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is appalingly informed about the GLC's contribution to sport. It has been half funding the National Sports Centre since its inception. Is the Minister aware that the GLC gives £8 million a year in grants to sporting bodies? What will he do to ensure that that funding continues, and will he guarantee the future of the London marathon, which, contrary to his information, is supported organisationally by the GLC?

Mr. Macfarlane: If the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of gassing away to his colleagues on the Back Bench, he might learn something. The only contribution that GLC representatives have made to sport in London is to threaten and try to ensure that funds will not reach the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace, and to walk out of some committees of the Greater London council. The marathon is a privately run organisation—

Mr. Tony Banks: No, Sir, it is not.

Mr. Macfarlane: —and my Department and my right hon. Friends have given every help to the marathon's organising committee. The marathon is safe with the Conservative Government.

Mr. Denis Howell: The marathon may be safe, but the Minister will never run 26 miles and 385 yds if lie continues to answer questions in that way. How can he say that the GLC has made no contribution when it and its predecessor authority were responsible for the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace—it is the only one we have — and it meets the capital, revenue and debt charges of the centre? Who will meet those after abolition? Similar questions could be asked about the Lea Valley sports centre.
Will the Minister confirm that in this year's estimates, not only for the GLC but for the metropolitan counties, £58 million is being spent on sport and recreation? Where will that money come from after abolition? Why can we not have a consultation exercise for sport similar to that for the arts? Will the Minister issue a consultation document so that we can have a sensible, reasonable and intelligent discussion on the future of sports provision?

Mr. Macfarlane: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's return to these affairs after his brief skirmish as a shadow Home Office spokesman. The only evidence in recent months of the GLC's contribution to sport was its spending of much money on poor projects. Its representatives walked out of several committees, and it threatened the National Sports Centre with a complete removal of financial support. Its spending in recent years has been profligate and has been removed from the taxpayers and ratepayers of Greater London. Future funding has yet to be considered, but at present the Sports


Council and the regional councils on sport and recreation are well placed, with the London boroughs, to run sport in the metropolis.

New Towns (House Sales)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of new town homes sold under the right-to-buy provisions by the Basildon development corporation and other new town development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Between May 1979 and September 1984 Basildon development corporation has sold 3,903 dwellings to sitting tenants, and other English new town development corporations have sold 11,315.

Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a source of great pride to those who live in the Basildon area? Will he encourage and facilitate shared ownership provisions for tenants who are prevented from buying their homes, especially newer houses, because the cost floor rules mean that the sale price is near to the market price and, therefore, they cannot obtain the full discount?

Sir George Young: Basildon is rightly proud of its record. It has sold more houses to sitting tenants than any other of the new town corporations.
Under the Housing Act 1984 tenants have a right to shared ownership in the circumstances which my hon. Friend described.

Mr. Cowans: Will the Minister tell the whole truth? Will he publish the cost to the taxpayer of those houses and the cost at which they were sold? Is it not true that there is a big discrepancy between the two figures?

Sir George Young: No, there is not. It is not possible to sell a house under the right-to-buy provisions at less than its cost. This is the cost floor, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) rightly referred. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend accept the appreciation of thousands of my constituents in Peterborough who are now able to own their homes, thanks to that legislation? Will he also accept that the exemplary selling commitment of the Peterborough development corporation helped to shame the Labour-controlled district council into selling houses as well?

Sir George Young: Although Basildon has sold more houses to sitting tenants, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, looked at in percentage terms, Peterborough has done even better. I am sure that it will have acted as an inspiration to the local authority, which I hope will respond with greater efforts to dispose of more of its homes.

Green Field Land

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that green field land is used for housing purposes only as a last resort and not before adjacent city centre sites have been utilised.

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. Friend published advice on land for housing in July under DOE circular

15/84. That circular restates the Government's commitment to existing conservation policies and the protection of good quality agricultural land. It emphasises the need to make full and effective use for housing of land within existing urban areas.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. On the subject of green field land, which is a precious and declining asset, can he assure the House that the Government are aware that in some cases neighbouring local city councils decline to sell land to housing developers, for reasons best known to themselves? In view of the pressure that this is putting on adjacent green field sites, will my hon. Friend consider whether the city councils concerned should be encouraged in some way to sell their land?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend brought a delegation to see me not long ago to discuss these matters. He knows the steps that we are taking to try to promote the development of urban land for housing. That is why we are pursuing a wide range of measures—for example, both urban development grant and derelict land grant—to help development in urban areas. I think that that is the best way forward. I am well aware of what my hon. Friend said was happening.

Mr. Park: How can the Minister reconcile that reply with the fact that at the same time in his Department applications are being turned down for derelict land clearance status, as happened in the case of Coventry?

Mr. Macfarlane: If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind, affecting an area of land about which he knows, he should let me know about it.

Leeds (Housing Stock)

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the survey of its housing stock prepared by the Leeds city council, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Sir George Young: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to a later version of the document enclosed with the council's letter to my Department of 2 July. It is desirable that local authorities should make objective assessments of the condition of their housing stock for management purposes, and the results are of value to my Department in deciding housing investment programme allocations.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful for that reply. Will the Minister accept that, with the level of capital finance currently available to Leeds city council, it is impossible for it adequately to maintain its own stock or to provide grants to private owners for improvement, with the inevitable and sad result that the council will be forced to return to policies of compulsory purchase and slum clearance on a wide scale, which have destroyed communities in recent years?

Sir George Young: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather gloomy assessment. I see no advantage in reverting to compulsory purchase orders and the rest of it. We have tried to direct a higher proportion of the regional allocation to Leeds in genuine recognition of the problems which the hon. Gentleman described. The document which he sent to my Department will help us in the next few days in deciding an appropriate allocation to Leeds for 1985–86.

Wildlife and Countryside Act

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he expects to see effected in the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act during the present Session.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): . The Commons Environment Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Act. Any question of considering major changes to the Act would need to await consideration of its report.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the consensus supporting conservation, to which he referred approvingly in yesterday's debate, seems to be demanding rather wider amendment of the Act than the Government seem likely to accept? Why are the Government so wretchedly lacking in imagination and so devoid of sympathy for decent demands? Will this not cause considerable rage in the circles supporting conservation unless a more reasonable attitude is taken?

Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the formation of a consensus on the need for some limited changes, and I hope to see those passed on the route down which the hon. Gentleman has gone. Wider and more major changes will need to await consideration of the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend consider incorporating into the review of the Act the possibility of doing something to include common land, which is in many cases a reserve of habitat for wildlife? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern in my constituency about the wildlife on the Copthorne upper and lower commons, whose protection would be enhanced by the stiffening of this Act?

Mr. Waldegrave: This shows that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, and on which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is an expert, is serious. This also shows that once we begin to widen the Act a number of extra measures could be made, which we would need to consider carefully.

Mr. Chris Smith: Why have the Government not given a commitment to introduce, in Government time, their own Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as we had all expected them to do when they gave commitments on this matter last year?

Mr. Waldegrave: There appears to be agreement on both sides of the House that the so-called three-month loophole should be blocked. A private Members' Bill was introduced, which unfortunately was defective. We have offered help to improve it. We can therefore deal with this through that procedure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that, outside the national parks and the sites of special scientific interest, protection for the landscape is often insufficient? Would it not be helpful if the same system of notification of farm grant applications as applies in the national parks were implemented in respect of local authorities and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service? Would this not be in the interests of the heritage?

Mr. Waldegrave: That would be a wide reform, with implications for how the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducts its advisory service. We need to await the advice of the Select Committee.

Land Register

Sir Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land were recorded on the local authority land register at July 1984 as being vacant, dormant or derelict land in public ownership.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: At 1 July the land registers gave details of 110,863 acres of unused or underused land owned by local authorities and other public bodies in England.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is it not time that this absurd hoarding was stopped? How many disposal notices have been issued to public sector land owners under the 1980 Act, and what has been the effect of this notification?

Mr. Baker: I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. As far as we have been able to discover, about 18,000 acres have been sold, leaving about 110,000 acres on the register. We examined nine sites and then proceeded to issue directives about a fortnight ago for the disposal of them. We shall be looking at other sites as well.

Mr. Eastham: With regard to the so-called hoarding of local government land, is it not a fact that three factors affect local authorities? The first is inadequate derelict land grants, the second is inadequate housing investment allocations and the third is that private developers are interested only in leafy suburbia, and not in the inner cities.

Mr. Baker: The amount allocated for derelict grant is going up this year, and stands at about £75 million. The capital investment in housing, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has said, will be over £3 billion this year. As to leafy suburbia, in the past month I have visited two or three sites in the north of England where derelict inner city council estates are being renovated and refurbished with Government assistance.

Mr. Steen: It is reassuring that my right hon. Friend follows all previous Secretaries of State in saying that the amount of public land is too much and unacceptable, as this has been said for about 10 years. Could not my right hon. Friend instruct all public authorities to reduce their derelict and vacant land by perhaps 25 per cent. a year, otherwise the land will never be used?

Mr. Baker: I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend. I do not have the powers that he asked me to use. We intend to keep up the pressure on the vast amount of land that is not used. The whole purpose of the legislation is to bring idle land into active use.

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) have made clear, the truth is that the Government's actions wholly belie their words. The Government have put local authorities which wish their derelict and dormant land to be brought into public. use—whether in the private or public sector—in a financial straitjacket by restricting the conditions governing the availability of derelict land grant and by prohibiting the full use of capital receipts by local authorities. If the


Minister wishes to encourage local authorties to do what they want to do—to bring this land into use—why does he not lift forthwith the restrictions on the use of capital receipts?

Mr. Baker: The capital receipts from the sale of housing land can be as high as 100 per cent. I ask the hon. Gentleman to get his facts right about the derelict land grant. Each year we are increasing the amounts available for derelict land grant. This is a major priority for my Department.

Water and Sewerage Industries

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors he took into account in setting the proposed levels of capital investment in the water and sewerage industries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gow: The public expenditure provision for water authorities announced in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expected to enable their investment to increase by about £80 million, or 12 per cent., in 1985–86. This takes account of the needs identified in the water authorities' 1984 corporate plans, including the development of water resources, faster progress with the renewal of sewers and water mains and further work to restore or maintain the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters.

Mr. Hicks: I welcome the intention to increase the level of financial expenditure on the infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend think that it is sensible at this stage to impose a water tax on consumers, especially when we are all anxious to keep down inflation and when the general public are still worried about the basis on which water and sewerage charges are imposed?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is not right in referring to this as a water tax. There is a danger in thinking that one can have higher investment in the water industry, and more money spent on the repair of sewers and the construction of reservoirs, without paying for all of this. The targets that have been set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are in no way unreasonable. The present rate of return on assets is only 1 per cent. Under my right hon. Friend's proposals, the average rate of return next year is estimated to be 1·4 per cent.; in 1986–87, 1·7 per cent.; and in 1987–88, 1·9 per cent.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister consider the position that will develop in the coming year for the regional water authorities, especially the Yorkshire water authority, as a result of the hardship that will be imposed on industrial and domestic users because of the suggested 12 per cent. increase in water charges? Will the Minister have regard to the hardship that will be created in the Yorkshire water authority area in particular and throughout the country in general?

Mr. Gow: The increase in water charges in the next financial year will vary from region to region and from authority to authority. The average water charge levied by water authorities in the current financial year is £78. If the average charge rises by 10 per cent. next year, the bill will rise from £78 to £85 or, to put it another way, from 21p a day to 23p a day. Water charges are taken fully into account when supplementary benefit is calculated. Some 3 million households receive help in the way that I have described.

Mr. Conway: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to substitute water metering for water rates?

Mr. Gow: Earlier this month I announced in the House that my Department had set up a study with the water industry to inquire into the possibility of extending water metering to the household customer. That inquiry will be completed as soon as possible and I shall then report further to the House.

Mr. Penhaligon: Whilst most hon. Members recognise that water has to be paid for, why do water authorities have to be run for profit? Why do profits have to increase by one third this year, especially after the difficulties experienced in the west country?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has not understood that a consequence of higher water charges will be the much needed higher investment, for which the hon. Gentleman called earlier this year. He is aware that in the south-west work is starting about now on the third of the strategic reservoirs. In the public sector we are seeking to follow the necessary disciplines of obtaining a proper return on investment. A 1 per cent. return on investment is inadequate for the water industry.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: While I support the general argument that my hon. Friend puts forward, does he agree that it is completely unreasonable that my constituents in Southend, and others, should have to pay what is called an additional extra because the water authorities are obliged to spend £50 million of capital expenditure for the sole purpose of taking nitrates out of water? As that is caused solely by agricultural practice, should that not be put on the agriculture Vote, instead of making my constituents pay more money to receive polluted water?

Mr. Gow: I shall discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I do not expect that it will be well received.

Dr. Cunningham: How does the Minister explain his sudden conversion to higher capital investment in the water industry when, in the past two financial years, he has presided over an underspend in excess of £100 million? Is it not adding insult to injury to those people who suffered severe water shortages this year to impose upon them some of the biggest increases in water rates? Is not the reality that the manipulation of external financing limits is simply a tax on water consumers? Why does the hon. Gentleman not face the truth?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman had left what was then the rather esoteric atmosphere of No. 10 Downing street before the famous letter of 15 December 1976 was written to Dr. Witterveen by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Rogers: What about Disraeli? Tell us about Disraeli.

Mr. Gow: This is what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East then wrote:
An essential element of the Government's strategy will be a continuing and substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector.
The hon. Member was a member of that Government. We are increasing capital expenditure in the water industry. The hon. Gentleman has confused investment with the cash limits set for that year. Although the EFL was


undercalled by over £100 million in 1982–83, the investment underspend was £37 million and, thanks to low tender prices, that represented a volume of work close to what had been planned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again call for shorter answers.

Private Rented Accommodation

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to promote the availability of private flats and houses for rent.

Mr. Gow: The Housing Act 1980 contained several provisions designed to stimulate the provision of private rented accommodation. I am considering whether further steps can be taken to encourage private landlords to meet the demand for homes to rent.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend accept that he could substantially increase the availability of private houses and flats for rent by repealing existing legislation? Does he further accept that by doing so he would, at no cost to the taxpayer, increase mobility of labour and thus take an important step towards reducing unemployment among young people?

Mr. Gow: I have already said to the House on several occasions that the Rent Acts, which were designed to assist those who wanted accommodation to rent, have injured the very people whom they were designed to help and have succeeded in many cases in drying up the supply of private rented accommodation. Nevertheless, the Government have already taken initiatives to help, notably by the introduction of shorthold and by the reduction of the interval from three to two years of the period after which a landlord can ask the rent officer to review the rent. As I have already made clear to the House, we are considering what further we can do.

Mr. Winnick: Why does the Minister not accept that when his party brought in the sort of measure that his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) is suggesting—for example the Rent Act 1957—it did not result in any way in providing more accommodation for letting, but produced Rachmanism? Is the Minister aware that private tenants will fight very hard to retain the rights that they must have against private landlords?

Mr. Gow: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because it is not true.

Local Authorities (Competitive Tendering)

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his consultation document on further steps on competitive tendering by local councils.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall issue a consultation document within the next few weeks.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of services undertaken by local government in this country are being supplied by private enterprise in at least one industrial country, if not several, in the free world? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake to survey, in his consultation paper, not what is now being attempted in this country by way of privatisation, but what has already succeeded elsewhere, most notably in the United States of America?

Mr. Baker: I give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I shall look at his suggestion. We have opened up a considerable number of activities in local government to competitive tendering. It has been beneficial, as is shown by the enormous savings that have already accrued.

Mr. Chope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? Wandsworth council has saved about £23 million as a result of competitive tendering and the London borough of Merton has saved about £6 million. Comparing the rate rises in Wandsworth and Lambeth over the last few years, it can be seen that in Lambeth the rates have gone up by 107 per cent. and in Wandsworth by only 6 per cent.

Mr. Baker: I pay tribute to the pioneering work of my hon. Friend, when he was in charge of Wandsworth council, in pressing ahead with privatisation. I remind the House that the Audit Commission, which is riot a Government body, produced a report showing specifically that all authorities which had privatised various services achieved indisputable savings through contracting out.

West Midlands County Council

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will break down by percentage of total expenditure the value of those services presently administered by the West Midlands county council that he intends should be in future controlled by (a) district authorities, (b) joint boards and (c) other forms of control.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The county concil's net current expenditure, as recorded in its budget return for 1984–85, would be devolved as follows: 40 per cent. would be controlled by the individual district councils, 60 per cent. would be the responsibility of the fire, police and passenger transport joint authorities, which would be composed of, and therefore controlled by, elected councillors from the districts.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that those figures will be treated with some scepticism? In my own county, the west midlands, analysis shows that the figure would be only 20 per cent. by value of services incurred by districts, and therefore under the democratic and accountable working control of working people, and that 80 per cent. would go to bodies which would be either centrally controlled or under undemocratic and unelected authorities. How does the Minister square that with his assertion that it is a great leap forward for democracy?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman represents a city which has been consistently against the county council. The city of Coventry has always wanted to run its own affairs. The figures that I gave are correct. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that when the duties are devolved to the joint passenger authorities, the police boards and the fire boards, elected councillors from the metropolitan districts will serve on those boards and control their expenditure.
The metropolitan counties have very few friends. Now that the hon. Member is taking up their cause, I think that they will view that fact with grave concern.

Mr. W. Benyon: Leaving aside the details of this question, is my right hon. Friend not concerned about the fact that during the protracted stages of the legislation that is about to come before the House, the arguments will


centre on whether the Government's financial estimates are right, or whether the estimates of Coopers and Lybrand are right? Is there not a case for having a major independent financial look at the matter before we go any further?

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend that the costs and savings in our estimate will be subject to considerable scrutiny, but I remind the House that our reason for embarking on the legislation is to return responsibility for a wide range of local government activities to the lower tier because we believe that it is more responsible and effective and that the work can be done more economically at the lower level.

Mr. Snape: Is it the Minister's intention to make the new joint boards as economic and democratic as, for example, the Severn-Trent water authority, which over the past decade has increased its precept by 244 per cent. compared with the precept increase of the metropolitan county of West Midlands of 159 per cent.? Bearing in mind that the Government have ensured that the meetings of the water authority are held behind closed doors so that the press are not allowed to attend and, further, that the Government have rigged the membership of the authority to suit their own political prejudices, is that the sort of democracy that the Minister wants to promote in the House to enhance his career?

Mr. Baker: I am doing nothing at all to the Severn-Trent water authority. With regard to the conduct of the business of the joint authorities, they will be subject to the same provisions for making their meetings open to the public as other local authorities. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be elected councillors on the joint authorities, and they will be responsible for the conduct and affairs of those joint authorities.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold in England since May 1979.

Sir George Young: From April 1979 to September 1984 about 620,000 dwellings were sold by local authorities and new towns in England.

Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the total stock of council houses that figure represents?

Sir George Young: Not without notice, is the short answer.

Mr. Flannery: How many starts are there on the stocks to replace houses so that the demands of the waiting lists can be met? Can the Minister tell us just how many people are now on the waiting lists and how many houses are there to accommodate them?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the houses are not there once they have been sold. The houses remain part of the housing stock, and real people continue to live in them. The hon. Gentleman asked about the waiting lists. If his thesis is right, that the sale of council houses denies people on waiting lists the opportunity to move up, he would expect there to be fewer re-lets each year. I have the figures in front of me. In 1979, 194,000 people occupied local authority re-lets. In 1982, that figure had gone up to 223,000.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: While I welcome the good figures for the sale of council house dwellings to date, may I ask my hon. Friend to chase up Labour-controlled councils such as Leicester to enable more people to buy their own houses and flats?

Sir George Young: There are still a number of authorities whose performance under the right to buy is unsatisfactory. My Department pursues progress with them so that all tenants can exercise their right to buy without delay or difficulty. Two thirds of the authorities that are monitored are Labour-controlled.

Mr. John Fraser: Why have not the capital receipts from the sale of over 600,000 council homes been recycled into rebuilding? Is not the truth that the Treasury has virtually stolen £3 billion to £4 billion of capital receipts —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the Treasury has stolen£3 billion to £4 billion of capital receipts from the sale of council houses, which could be used to build over 100,000 new houses to let, for major capitalised repairs on council estates, and for major improvements and repairs to privately owned houses. Is not the truth that the money is being taken away by the Treasury and that the people have been deceived about what was to happen with the proceeds from the right to buy?

Sir George Young: I am not sure how the Treasury could have stolen, if that is the right word, £3 billion or£4 billion, as total receipts from the sale of council houses have been only £2 billion. That £2 billion has been used by local authorities to supplement their housing investment programmes. It has been ploughed back into housing.

Land Register

Sir Reginald Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of keeping and updating the land registers of public vacant land; how many civil servants, part or full-time, are employed in maintaining the land registers; and what is the estimated cost on his Vote for so doing.

Mr. Macfarlane: The departmental staff and accommodation costs of maintaining the land registers are not separately identified, but are estimated at about £325,000 per annum. The equivalent of 21 full-time staff are employed for the purpose.

Sir Reginald Eyre: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department's announcement last week about compulsory sales of land is greatly to be welcomed and will help to justify that expense? Can he give further details of the procedure to be adopted, and will he vigorously follow up this new approach?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The announcement meets observations and requests made by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been very vigilant on this. We have to proceed slowly, as the land is not owned by the Department. Many nationalised industries and local authorities actually own the land. We have now made progress and issued first directions to local authorities in Darlington, Sunderland, Oldham and Nottingham. We shall be watching the situation closely and continuing the kind of progress that my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Tony Banks: What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues about releasing some of the land held by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Macfarlane: That is a topic for continuing discussion by Ministers and officials.

(Environmental Effects) Agricultural Policy

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his initiative calling on the European Commission to review the progress made towards ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into account in common agricultural policies and to identify the scope for further action in this field.

Mr. Waldegrave: I wrote to Commissioner Narjes on 9 October. The Commission is currently considering our initiative. I propose to table a memorandum setting out the United Kingdom position for discussion at the next meeting of the Environment Council on 6 December.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that this important initiative must be carried through to success? Does he also accept that there is no sense in using agriculture grants merely to add to farm surpluses, and every reason to switch grants to support farming that takes account of conservation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our initiative in the Environment Council is aimed at matching that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Agriculture Council and to make a reality of the Community's integration of agricultural and environmental policies.

Dr. David Clark: I welcome the initiative at the EEC. However, does the Minister appreciate that it will affect only a very small part of our agricultural production and will inevitably involve delays? Does he accept that an alternative or additional means to achieve the same ends would be to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act to empower MAFF to undertake expenditure on the promotion of nature conservancy in the same way as the Act requires water boards to do?

Mr. Waldegrave: Amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act would not alter Common Market law. This proposal aims to do just that. There must, of course, be limits on the expenditure, because, if for no other reason, this country above all does not wish to increase the total Common Market budget. Nevertheless, it is a valuable initiative, which has been widely welcomed.

Hydrocarbons (Exploration)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received

concerning the need to safeguard the environment of rural areas especially sensitive to development from disturbances caused as a result of exploration for hydrocarbons.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am well aware of the concern caused by increased interest in exploration for hydrocarbons, particularly in southern England. That is why', in August, this year, the Department issued draft guidelines to local authorities on planning control over oil and gas operations. Since then I have received 45 representations in response to our request for comments on the draft and some 20 other letters on site-specific proposals.

Mr. Ross: I congratulate the Minister on what he has done so far. I assure him that I am not referring to the Solent, but does he accept that some landscapes are so sensitive that the environmental interests outweigh even the need for oil? Does he accept that it is vital for the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy to agree on those areas before embarking on the kind of process now taking place in the Solent?

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses That is why, in response to other questions in the House on 24 October, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made a commitment that environmentally sensitive areas should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. Local planning authorities and county authorities also have a major part to play, as in some respects they are the experts in the immediate location of the exploration activities. The draft circular therefore emphasises that environmentally sensitive areas must be paramount at all times.

Mr. Nelson: There will be widespread support for the report that my hon. Friend has circulated to local planning authorities, giving them guidance on the criteria that they should apply to such applications. However, is my hon. Friend aware that while those of us who represent areas of great sensitivity, including areas of outstanding natural beauty, wish to support the national interest, we have had representations from our local authorities to the effect that the report needs to be stiffened? It should explain exactly why onshore exploration is important in the national interest. It should give more figures and more reasons.

Mr. Macfarlane: I can only advise the House on planning aspects. If my hon. Friend is anxious for details about onshore activities and the country's energy system, he will of course approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, the planning system allows the views of the public to be fully considered at all times. The local planning authorities represent the start of a rigorous process of appraisal.

Gibraltar

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the outcome of the series of meetings that I have had with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Sr. Moran, about Gibraltar.
At our most recent meeting in Brussels on 27 November, we reached agreement about the way to put into effect the terms of the Lisbon statement of 10 April 1980. I am arranging for a copy of yesterday's communique to be placed in the Library of the House. As a result of that agreement, the specific measures which I shall describe in a moment will be implemented by a date to be agreed, but not later than 15 February 1985.
From the date of implementation, direct communications between Gibraltar and Spain will be restored. This means that there will be free movement of people, vehicles and goods.
From the date of implementation, Spaniards in Gibraltar will enjoy those European Community rights which would otherwise become available only from the day of Spain's accession to the Community. From the same date, Gibraltarians in Spain will enjoy similar rights.
The legislative proposals necessary for this will be introduced in Gibraltar and in Spain. This arrangement does not affect the derogations and transitional periods which will have been agreed between Spain and the Community. These will of course be applicable to Gibraltar, in particular as regards the free movement of labour.
The range of matters to be covered will include freedom to enter and settle, rights of establishment and trade union rights, together with the right to provide a service and to purchase land and property. In addition, the Spanish Government have agreed that they will take the early actions necessary to allow safe and effective air communications within the air space in the region of Gibraltar.
On the day that communications are restored, the Spanish Foreign Minister and I will meet to begin the negotiating process envisaged by the Lisbon statement. That process will be aimed at overcoming all the differences between us over Gibraltar and at promoting cooperation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environmental matters. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, will, of course, accompany me to that meeting.
Sr. Moran has told me that the Spanish side will raise the issue of sovereignty in these negotiations, as they are entitled to do on the basis provided by the Lisbon statement itself. Yesterday's communique makes it equally plain that the British Government will fully maintain their commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution. That commitment stands unchanged. Sr. Moran, for his part, has made clear the importance that he, too, attaches to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Sr. Moran and I agreed about the importance of establishing practical co-operation between the people of Gibraltar and the neighbouring region. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has expressed the same view. This will be of

benefit to all sides. It will provide an important opportunity for Gibraltar's economy to develop and diversify.
This agreement marks the development of a new stage in relations between Britain and Spain, who are fellow NATO allies and prospective partners in the European Community.
Throughout this series of talks, I have kept in the closest touch with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan. I am most grateful to him for his consistently wise advice and support. In his statement yesterday, Sir Joshua Hassan said that he welcomed the agreement and believed that it will be beneficial to the people of Gibraltar. In his view, it will be a first step in the process of normalisation and fruitful co-operation between Gibraltar and the immediate vicinity for the benefit of all.
Sir Joshua Hassan described this agreement as an honourable outcome. I entirely endorse that judgment. I firmly believe that the agreement is in the interests of Gibraltar. The interests of Gibraltar and its people have always been, and will remain, of central importance to the British Government.

Mr. Denis Healey: I should like first to welcome the agreement on behalf of the Labour Opposition. It is a welcome step forward. However, I am bound to say that the concessions made by the Spanish Government are ones that they would have been obliged to make the moment they joined the European Community and undertook to make four-and-a-half years ago in an agreement with Lord Carrington. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the new feature of this agreement since Lord Carrington's discussions is the agreement by the Government to discuss the sovereignty of Gibraltar when negotiations begin after communications are restored? The Opposition welcome that commitment and believe that it might set an important precedent for other parts of the world, such as the Falklands, where it is necessary to link the reopening of communications with discussions on sovereignty.
Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we welcome the fact that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regards the agreement as honourable. We welcome the Foreign Secretary's view, which was expressed at the end of his statement, that the interests of the people of Gibraltar must remain paramount.
Perhaps I could ask the Foreign Secretary a few detailed questions. First, can he tell us anything about how he sees the future of the dockyard in Gibraltar in the light of the new agreement? Secondly, what obligations will the Government accept for the pension rights of any Spanish employees who may take advantage of the new agreement at the appropriate stage to accept employment in Gibraltar? Finally, we regard this agreement as removing a serious obstacle to better relations between Britain and a democratic Spain. We hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government will now give powerful support to Spain's accession to the EC at the already agreed date.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of my statement. I am glad to endorse the points on which he closed. We join the official Opposition in looking forward to Spain's early accession and will continue to give our full encouragement to the completion of the enlargement negotiations at the date already foreseen.
With regard to the general pattern of the agreement, it should be observed that what is now being afforded is an equality of arrangements on both sides. Both sides are agreeing to accelerate the rights that would become available on accession somewhat ahead of time. With regard to sovereignty, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Lisbon statement specifically allowed any subject to be raised by either side and it was always foreseen that sovereignty was likely to be raised by the Spaniards in that context. Indeed, it had been raised before. It arises as a result of this implementation of the Lisbon agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman would be quite wrong to draw any parallel between this case and that of the Falkland Islands. They are historically, legally and constitutionally quite different. There is a complete contrast between the conduct of the two countries concerned — Spain and Argentina. Spain is an ally in NATO and a prospective partner in the European Community. Moreover, successive Spanish Governments have said publicly that they will pursue their claim by peaceful means. As I said in my statement, the Spanish Foreign Minister has spoken publicly of the need to respect the interests and the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. There could be no greater contrast between Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
Arrangements in regard to the dockyard have already been announced to the House. On 1 January 1985, the Royal Naval dockyard will be replaced by Gibraltar Shiprepair Limited, which is a commercially managed enterprise with A. P. Appledore International Limited acting as managers. The land and assets for the commercial ship repair yard are being handed over free of charge. Earlier this year we announced that £28 million had been made available to the Gibraltar Government for disbursement to meet the initial costs of conversion. We also announced that during the first three years of operation of the commercial yard work to a value of at least £14 million would be provided by the Ministry of Defence on Royal fleet auxiliaries.
I understand that people on the Spanish side of the border who have previously been employed in Gibraltar are already drawing, or are entitled to draw, pensions. All these matters are receiving consideration, but at the moment I cannot be specific.

Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend will agree that in the past it would have been difficult for Gibraltar to keep going without Moroccan labour. Can he assure us that there will not be a dramatic cut-off in relation to Moroccans who already have jobs and without whose help it would have been impossible to keep the territory operating?
My right hon. and learned Friend's statement made it quite clear that the implementation of the Lisbon agreement was contingent on Spain's entry into the EEC on the hoped-for date in January 1986. If due to the influence of other powers—not Britain—that entry date is delayed, may we take it that it will not mean that the Spaniards will say, "Now we have not got in on January 1986 we are hack to the status quo ante and we start all over again."?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take my hon. Friend's point about a delay in the completion of the accession negotiations. The rights that would arise in those

circumstances could not, I think, be altered. Spain will join the European Community. The date has been fixed for the implementation of this agreement—not later than 15 February—and I see no reason to suppose that anything thereafter will alter that date or its effectiveness for all these purposes.
My hon. Friend also spoke of the need to respect the position of Moroccans who already work there. Spaniards and Moroccans in Gibraltar have thus far been treated in the same way as all other non-European Community nationals. So far as we are concerned, they have always been able to live and work in Gibraltar, and that will remain the position.

Dr. David Owen: The Foreign Secretary, Sr. Moran, and, indeed, Sir Joshua Hassan are to be congratulated on an extremely sensible and well-negotiated preliminary settlement. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a vindication of the fact that the European Community is far more than just a trading arrangement, that it is a democratic institution and that it was inconceivable that Spain could have entered the Community while these restrictions existed?
In commenting on the differences between this case and the situation in the Falkland Islands, the Foreign Secretary has done less than justice to President Alfonsin of Argentina, who, after all, at some peril to his own life, was a critic of the aggression against the Falkland Islands—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a statement on Gibraltar.

Dr. Owen: But, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Secretary elaborated on that point in reply to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the spokesman for the Labour party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not being fair to the democracy of Argentina and the statements of President Alfonsin about pursuing sovereignty through peaceful means. I hope that he will reconsider his statements, because they are damaging in the context of the situation in the southern Atlantic.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but I must correct the emphasis which he sought to deploy in his latter remarks. An important difference now is that Argentina has an elected democratic government. We welcomed that fact when that Government took office. However, that is not the only factor that has to be taken into account. I drew attention to the much closer relationships which have existed and which will exist between ourselves, the people of Spain and the Spanish Government. That is apparent in the statements which they have made, which stand in sharp contrast to the simple and outstanding fact that Argentina—within a short time of 15 February two years ago—invaded and took possession of the Falkland Islands by force. That is an aspect of history which renders the whole matter vastly different. That is something that must be faced.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. An incidental reference to Argentina is allowable, but detailed references are not.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I must congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the diligence and diplomacy which he displayed in the many meetings with Sr Moran to arrive at the successful


conclusion which was announced in yesterday's communiqué. However what is the reason for the fixed date of 15 February 1985? Is it not possible to give expatriates and others the opportunity of visiting either Spain or Gibraltar during this year's festive season?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I would be disposed in principle to agree to anything which increased the prospects of festivity. The date which has been chosen takes into account the likely necessary time to carry through the introduction of the legislative measures that are necessary on both sides. It was clear that both sides wanted to move ahead as expeditiously as possible. The 15 February is a not-later-than date. If we can move ahead of it, so much the better. I fear that we shall not be able to do so in time for Christmas.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the agreement, on which I congratulate him, illustrates how it is possible to negotiate in perfect good faith with the present Spanish Government? Does he draw the further conclusion that one of our main purposes over the coming months must be to negotiate further, fully in accord with the people of Gibraltar and in consultation with them, to ensure that we strengthen democracy in Spain, which is one of the greatest achievements of recent times? Does he accept that this sort of agreement can assist?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the opportunity of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. This sort of agreement negotiated in this way can assist in this process. The accession of Spain to the European Community, on which we are all working as hard as we can, will make a powerful additional fortification to that process.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Has not the trouble in recent years been the unreasonable treatment by Franco of Gibraltar? If Gibraltarians are able now to deal in a reasonable, just and friendly way with Spain, may they not eventually find it possible to live in a Spanish dimension without losing their own identity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a question which in the end will have to be answered by the people of Gibraltar themselves. That is why we have underlined our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. My hon. Friend is right in saying that one of the consequences of the agreement should be an improvement in the prospects of co-operation between the people of Gibraltar and the people of the nearby part of Spain. That can do nothing but good in opening up the prospects for further co-operation between the two peoples.

Mr. John Hume: I, too, congratulate, the Foreign Secretary on the agreement. Does he agree that the issue of sovereignty becomes an obstacle to the resolution of larger and wider problems? He showed a welcome sensitivity to Spanish views on the subject by agreeing to have them on the table for discussion. Does he agree that the problem of Northern Ireland is far more serious than that of Gibraltar and that the issue of sovereignty—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hume: —is a major obstacle—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hume: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was an abuse on the part of the hon. Gentleman and I am surprised at his action.

Mr. Hume: We have taken many abuses over the centuries, Mr. Speaker.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar until its people decide that with a free democratic vote?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position for the people of Gibraltar remains exactly the same as was stated in the 1969 constitution. It will be changed only if the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar point in that direction. We stand by that unchanged commitment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Liberal party also wishes to congratulate him on the agreement, which is much in the terms set out by Sir Joshua Hassan, who I noticed attracted from the Foreign Secretary the quite unique tribute of being consistently wise? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the only aspect that will delay the agreement until 15 February is the necessary legislation in Spain and Portugal and that no other factors are relevant?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is the practical position. Obviously, having moved as we did in the past two days to reach the agreement, it was necessary to identify a date a reasonable period ahead, as soon as we could reasonably make it, and with a reasonable prospect of being able to complete all the necessary steps. It is a practical choice of a practical date and, as I have said, it is a not-later-than date.

Sir Bernard Braine: How does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage honouring the pledge that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar will be respected? Does he recall that 15 years ago the people of Gibraltar were given in a plebiscite the opportunity to declare whether they wished to remain under the Crown? Will he give a specific assurance here and now that at the appropriate time—and it may not be yet—the people of Gibraltar will be given the same right as they were given all those years ago?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have given the specific assurance reaffirming the proposition set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution that
Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
There is no doubt about the wishes and feelings of the people of Gibraltar at the present time. That was established in a referendum some time ago. It may not be desirable to continue to test the temperature in that way. That will have to be considered by the Gibraltar Government. However, the principle that I have enunciated stands unqualified.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his achievements and welcoming his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), may I ask whether it follows from the communiqué that should the


Spanish Government raise the question of sovereignty, as they are entitled to do, any discussions of that matter will be academic?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that it would be right to reach that conclusion. The Spanish Government have stated on more than one occasion that they do not expect change in that respect, even on their own terms, happening at a fast pace. They have stated that they recognise the need to have regard to the wishes as well as the interests of the people of Gibraltar. In effect, they recognise that if the proposition contained in the constitution that I have just quoted is to be respected a process of persuasion on their part would have to be undertaken. All those are features which, realistically, they must take into account during the negotiating process.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to welcome the friendly, realistic and, above all, constructive approach of the Spanish Government not only on this issue but on the talks about a new extradition treaty, on Spain's becoming a member of NATO and on its seeking early membership of the European Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to be able to say yes to that question. It is the prospect of making progress on, for example, the new extradition treaty that is encouraged by such an agreement. It is one of the practical illustrations of the benefits that can flow from such an arrangement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another statement to follow. I shall allow questions to continue on this statement for a further five minutes.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the unemployment and pension rights of Moroccans who prevented Gibraltar from collapsing when Franco's Government endeavoured to bring about its collapse by closing the frontier? Does he recognise that many people are extremely worried about what will happen to them? Without those Moroccan workers, there would have been a much heavier cash liability on the British Treasury to support Gibraltar. Does he agree that we have an ex-gratia obligation to ensure that some form of pension is provided for them when they are displaced as a result of these entirely excellent arrangements? I ask my right hon. and learned Friend not to neglect those matters because many hon. Members feel strongly about them.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. The pension rights of people who have been working in Gibraltar, whether Moroccan or Spanish under the previous disposition, depend to some extent on the schemes that have existed and that exist today. I shall certainly consider that point carefully.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is not the concession of sovereignty a surrender to blackmail? We have never before discussed sovereignty with the Spanish Government. What is to stop them from nibbling away at this issue, confident in the knowledge that the principle of a transfer of sovereignty has already been conceded? The Spaniards never observed the Lisbon agreement. Why does my right hon. and learned Friend think that they will observe this agreement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is wrong to say that the principle of sovereignty has now been conceded. The position remains the same as that arising from the Lisbon statement, except that the question of sovereignty can be raised. He is also wrong when he says that there is nothing to stop sovereignty from being conceded. My firm reaffirmation of the preamble of the 1969 constitution stops that. We shall continue to honour our obligations and respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Peter Fry: Has my right hon. and learned Friend read this morning that a spokesman from the Spanish Foreign Office effectively said that the agreement meant that there would eventually be integration of Gibraltar into Spain? Does he accept that that is not inevitable? Will he note that a reason which may change Gibraltarians' opinion is a decline in their economy? Will he therefore accept that this country and the Government have a continuing responsibility that goes further than merely financing new ship repair yards?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have noticed many statements reported in today's press, including the proposition of the Spanish Foreign Minister, which underlines the fact that the Spanish Government have the greatest respect for the feelings of Gibraltarians. The possibility that we have wanted to avert by making this agreement is the risk of a decline in the economic prospects of Gibraltar. Nothing could do more than this agreement to promote improved prospects in that respect. The British Government will continue to follow closely economic developments in Gibraltar. We envisage that this agreement will assist the economy of Gibraltar to develop and diversify.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend, but I particularly congratulate the small Gibraltarian Government who may have considerable difficulties — hon. Members who know Gibraltar will recognise this—during the next two years with their economy in the new changed position. Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise to be behind that Government and, if necessary, to increase the subsidy to help them through this difficult period?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall continue to follow economic developments in Gibraltar closely, as we have done thus far. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the nature of the problems that have been and are facing Gibraltar. The opportunity opening up on 1 January with the commencement of the dockyard under new management will make a positive contribution to the future. The prospect of economic co-operation opened up by the agreement will make an even more substantial contribution to the prospects for economic prosperity. We shall certainly keep the position closely under review.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the agreement is welcome evidence of the improving relationship between Britain and democratic Spain? Is he further aware that it is an important demonstration that the proper way for democratic states to resolve sovereignty disputes between them is on the twin bases of discussion and respect for the rights of those most intimately involved?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with both points.

Mr. Toby Jessel: As it is clearly established that it is the wish of the overwhelming majority


of Gibraltarians to stay British permanently, does not my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it would be rather unkind to allow Spain to delude itself into imagining that any change is likely at any time in the future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even my hon. Friend must hesitate about asserting that any proposition is the permanent truth. What is true, without any qualification, is that the Spanish Government wish to raise the question of sovereignty, and that our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar remains firm, unqualified and as set out in the constitution.

Later—

Mr. Hume: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I was fortunate enough to catch your eye following the Foreign Secretary's statement on Gibraltar and I was grateful for that. I am somewhat puzzled, however, at what I regard as the inconsistency of your treatment of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and myself. When those right hon. Gentlemen raised what they regarded as analogous issues you allowed the Foreign Secretary to reply, but when I did the same you not only ruled me out of order but described my question as an abuse, which is, you will agree, rather strong language. I believe that I am entitled to raise an analogous issue, especially as I was making exactly the same point as the two right hon. Gentlemen — that the Government's policy on analogous issues is based not on principle but on expediency.

Mr. Speaker: Two abuses do pot make a right. After the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised the matter I pointed out that only an allusion could be made to the Falklands. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), however, persisted in making a rather long statement about Northern Ireland. The Foreign Secretary's statement had nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Gibraltar was the subject of the statement.

Mr. Hume: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No; we cannot have any further points of order on that.

Regional Industrial Policy

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's review of regional policy. I have today made four orders to bring into force the new regional development grant scheme and the new map of assisted areas. The orders, including that specifying the new assisted areas, are available in the Vote Office.
Our decisions have been taken after very full consultation, including consideration of almost 500 submissions. I have placed in the Library a list and a summary of the submissions received. The submissions received show considerable support for the Government's proposals as outlined in the White Paper. While the majority support the continuation of regional policy, many are critical of the waste inherent in the present system and consider it possible to make the policy more cost-effective.
To achieve greater cost-effectiveness we have concluded that the new map should have two tiers instead of three, and that the inner tier, which will qualify for automatic grants as well as regional selective assistance, will be restricted to 15 per cent. of the working population. This compares with 22 per cent. for the present development and special development areas. The outer tier of the map, which will qualify for regional selective assistance, will cover a further 20 per cent. of the working population. We have included in the new map several areas, most notably parts of the west midlands, that have previously been denied regional assistance. Both tiers will be eligible for support from the European regional development fund.
In redrawing the map we considered the present and future employment patterns of each area, along with other factors, including the risk of distortions where non-assisted areas are adjacent to assisted areas. Some such effects are inevitable in any regional policy. For the new RDG scheme we have set the rate of capital grant at 15 per cent. In our view, the new rate is high enough to ensure that grants are an effective incentive to investment.
For too long regional policy has unduly discriminated against service industries even when such industries offer the prospect of increased employment. We have, therefore, decided to make some service activities eligible for regional development grant. These are listed in the relevant order.
Since unemployment is such an important concern today, it is also right that any policy as expensive as regional policy should be tied more closely to jobs. We have already announced our intention to make two changes to give effect to that aim. First, capital grant will be subject to a cost-per-job limit. Too much money has been spent in support of capital-intensive projects that create few jobs and do little for the economies of the regions. The cost-per-job limit will be £10,000. However, we wish to minimise the burdens placed on small firms and this limit will not normally be applied to firms employing fewer than 200.
Secondly, we also announced that in future firms should be able to receive a job grant as an alternative to capital grant. The job grant will be set at a level of £3,000


for each new job created. Firms will not have to choose between job grant and capital grant: they will automatically receive whichever is the greater.
The Government also intend to continue to give selective assistance to projects that protect existing employment but which otherwise would not go ahead. With the increase in the outer tier of the map, this will mean an increase in selective assistance. Overall, the balance between automatic grants and selective assistance will shift considerably towards the latter.
After the working through of the transitional provisions, we expect the new regional policy to cost nearly £300 million per year less than if present policy were to be continued. This will be a considerable lightening of the public expenditure burden of the policy. Even so, we shall still be spending nearly £400 million on regional policy in 1987–88 to improve job prospects in the worst hit areas.
The most important feature of our policy is that money will now be spent in the areas with the worst problems and that, in terms of new jobs per pound of expenditure, the new policy will be far more effective than the old.

Mr. John Smith: Before I ask the Minister about the content of his statement, may I ask him what arrangements the Government propose to make to debate this important statement? Is he aware that, for hon. Members on both sides of the House, the detail in the orders will be the most important information that they can obtain, but they will not be able to comment on it today? Therefore, it is important to have an early debate on the principle and on the orders, and I hope that we can have more than one day.
Is the Minister aware that the truth behind his glib references to flexibility and cost-effectiveness is that the statement announces the end of effective regional assistance? Is it not disgraceful, at a time when unemployment in the regions has never been higher, that the Government have made a slashing reduction of £300 million a year, which represents £1·5 billion during five years, in the regional development budget? Is it not appalling that, although unemployment is much higher than it was when special development areas had to be created, the reduction in the regional development grant to 15 per cent. plus the other limits will mean that, effectively, special development areas will be abolished completely?
Does the Minister realise that this is the second major attack on the regional development system since the cuts of 1979 and 1982? There has already been a major reduction in assistance. Can he confirm that expenditure between 1974 and 1979 was £6·4 billion, which was reduced to £4·1 billion between 1979 and 1984, which is a reduction of 35 per cent. even before the changes that he has just announced? Why does the regional development programme have to shoulder further reductions that will go to the heart of its effectiveness?
Are not the limits of £10,000 a job on capital grants and the miserly £3,000 on job grants completely unrealistic, when it costs the Government £6,000 a year for every person who is unemployed? Do not the Government demonstrate that the so-called emphasis on job-oriented assistance is completely bogus? Are not the levels well below the permitted EC levels, and do they not put our

regions at a serious disadvantage within the Community, where we already have 10 of the 25 most disadvantaged regions?
Is it not the case that areas moving from special development area status and development area status to the outer tier will face a sharp and severe cut in the assistance that can be offered, which is bound to be a major blow to their hopes for industrial development and a major accelerator of local unemployment? Can the Minister state—the House will listen with care to his answer to this—the expected increase in unemployment as a result of the changes announced today?
Although the Opposition welcome the inclusion of parts of the west midlands within the ambit of the outer tier assistance, is it not sad that the collapse of manufacturing industry and the huge increase in unemployment in the west midlands, as a result of the Government's policies, are such that the west midlands must now be helped in this way? Although the core of Birmingham has 30 per cent. unemployment, why is not a single ward in the west midlands made a development area?
Is it not quite deplorable that the help to be given to areas now included in the outer zone of minimal assistance has to be at the expense of other areas which have had their help reduced? Is it not a case not only of cutting the jam but of insisting that the vastly reduced amount be spread as thinly as possible?
Much is made by the Government of the capital expenditure on the Sullom Voe oil terminal and some chemical projects. Could not a limit have been put on certain categories of expenditure by a simple exercise in reclassification without having to downgrade the whole system of regional development?
Why does the inclusion of services, which we welcome as an addition to the existing help for services, have to be at the expense of major cuts in support for main line manufacturing by the withdrawal of grants for replacement and much of the modernisation programme? Will tourists and hotels be covered in the service assistance? Whatever is the extension of services or of the map, surely it in no way makes up for the massive reductions elsewhere.
Is it not extremely foolish to compound the folly of the withdrawal by the Chancellor in his Budget of capital allowances through the withdrawal of grants for replacement and modernisation, which will have a major disincentive effect on industrial modernisation?
Do not the Government realise that the massive drop in investment in manufacturing industries since 1979 is at the heart of our troubles? Why are they encouraging it?

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it appropriate, in a matter as important as this, when there are many Back Benchers who have an interest, for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to take all our time in this way?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter that affects a great many right hon. and hon. Members. When I call Back Benchers, I must take into account the amount of time taken by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. Smith: The House will realise that, however bland and short the Minister's statement might be, this is of tremendous importance to many areas that are suffering very high unemployment.
Is not the reality that the Government are signalling the end of regional development policies that have been pursued by Governments of all parties? How long are people in the regions to be condemned to high unemployment and low value added jobs because of the Government's obsessive determination to slash public expenditure to levels which will ruin the country?

Mr. Lamont: There will be a full debate on what I have announced today, though obviously the precise details of it will have to be arranged through the usual channels.
This is not the end of effective regional policy. It is the beginning of job-related and effective regional policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded that there had been a lot of waste in regional policy. He conceded, in relation to Sullom Voe, the expenditure of £130,000 for each job created. That is the problem that we have to tackle. We have tackled it by the cost per job limit and the requirement to create jobs. The cost per job limit and the requirement to create jobs account for half the saving that I have announced. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman against that?

Mr. Smith: Yes.

Mr. Lamont: In that case the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in favour of the economies that he professed to want. He is in favour of £130,000 for each job at Sullom Voe.
There is room for economies when regional policy created new jobs in the 1970s at a cost of £35,000 each. Many of those jobs would have come into existence anyway.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the cost per job limit of £10,000 and suggested that that was too niggardly. It is about twice the level of the average capital intensity of investment in British industry. It will not deny the capital-intensive sector access to regional development grants.
As for the job grant, which has been fixed at a limit of £3,000, it is true that that could be slightly higher under the EC limit, at £3,150. We felt it prudent to be somewhat below that. The fluctuations of exchange rates could place us in a difficult position. But it is not a significant amount below the maximum.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of an abrupt cut-off. He should know that there are transitional provisions and that in the inner tier where people qualify for regional development grants, provided those assets are made available in the next 12 months, they will still qualify for them. There are generous transitional provisions.
As for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Birmingham—I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will be referring to it—our review of the map has been based on the same principles as the map of the Labour Government. That was based on travel-to-work areas, and that is what we have done as well.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman condemned the taking out of replacement investment. That again is common throughout the EC. We are required to do it, and it was announced in the House before today.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether hotels and tourism would be included in the service activities. Obviously we gave this matter considerable

thought. After consulting the industry, we decided that we would not include them. It was made clear to us that most of them preferred to benefit from the national scheme under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, where they have their own money available for the development of tourism.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to get his facts right when he says that the decline in investment makes the timing of my announcement inopportune. Precisely the opposite is true. Investment in manufacturing is rising so strongly that we are able to make these savings. It is rising this year by some 14 per cent. or 15 per cent., which is the best rate seen for many years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In relation to what I said a few moments ago, I would normally allow about half an hour for a statement and questions to the Minister making it. In view of the importance of this one I propose to allow questions to go on until five o'clock. I hope in that time to be able to call every right hon. and hon. Member seeking to catch my eye, but I ask for brief questions, please.

Mr. David Mudd: As a west country Member of Parliament, I listened with delight to my hon. Friend's statement. However, it seems that in tidying up the problems of west Cornwall he has created a far greater anomaly in the Truro travel-to-work area. One area, United Downs, which has encouraged massive input from the Department of the Environment and the Manpower Services Commission, is to be discouraged as a focal point for industrial development because it has fallen foul of a line on the map. I hope that I shall have my hon. Friend's assurance that these lines on the map are not mandatory and will be negotiable in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Lamont: Much as I would like to oblige my hon. Friend, I fear that I am unable to give him that assurance. He will know that our building block for the assisted area map is, as it has always been, the travel-to-work area. That is based on common sense. People may argue about the formation of an individual travel-to-work area, but it makes sense, when the policy is aimed at reducing imbalances in unemployment throughout the country, to look at it in terms of areas where people, as statistically measured, travel to and from work. That is the basis of the travel-to-work areas, and that must be the only basis upon which a policy designed to iron out levels of unemployment can be established. Therefore, I am afraid that what my hon. Friend says about Department of the Environment money going into a smaller area does not undermine the basis of the policy. We have to stick to the basic building block of the system.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister not understand that, by his announcement today, he is excluding, not only from British but from European regional aid, some of the areas with the highest unemployment? Why did he stick to the travel-to-work area as a building block, when that has led to the inclusion within aid of some areas with low unemployment to the exclusion of areas such as Amble in my constituency, with the highest unemployment? Does he realise that this slap-dash map, drawn by somebody sitting behind a desk in


London, demonstrates that not only does he not care about the levels of unemployment, but that he does not even know where they are.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he says about the European regional development fund. As a result of our changes, far larger parts of the country will qualify for access to the ERDF. The total map has been enlarged from some 27·5 per cent. to 35 per cent. The outer tier is now 20 per cent., compared with 5 per cent. before. Many areas will now qualify for ERDF assistance. That was one of our main motives in enlarging the outer tier.

Sir Raymond Gower: In pursuing that matter, has full account been taken of the fact that the regional development status of an area governs the likelihood of it obtaining EEC aid? What will be the impact of these changes on areas such as Wales?

Mr. Lamont: The position as I have just explained to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is that many more areas will qualify for ERDF assistance. Of course, it depends on those individual areas being able to generate the projects themselves. As regards the effects on Wales, we had to make difficult decisions based on impartial criteria, and Wales has been treated fairly. Half the total savings are coming from England, one third from Scotland, and one fifth from Wales.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is there not a case for more help for many more parts of Greater Manchester than is proposed? Taking its population as a percentage of the north-west as a whole, should not Greater Manchester have higher priority? Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the city in Manchester there are male unemployment rates of over 50 per cent., and in some localities over 66 per cent. of young people under 25 on the dole? Does that not just speak but shout of the need for more help for Greater Manchester?

Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman says that inner Manchester has high levels of unemployment, which it has. He then goes on to say — I do not follow the "therefore" in his argument—that Greater Manchester should have assisted area status. The right hon. Gentleman should be grateful that Manchester has been partially included. I know what Labour Members are interested in. This is the only travel-to-work area that has been split. It is on the borderline of the 35 per cent. maximum coverage that we could have. We had to negotiate that with the EEC and we could not go beyond 35 per cent. To be frank, we are lucky that we have part of Manchester in, and there is not a strong case for saying that the whole of the Manchester area should be included.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that many people, who have never been included in development or assisted areas but who live in pockets of considerable unemployment, will be pleased to see that they will now be treated in the same way as most of the rest of the country? Therefore, from their point of view, this is an excellent statement. Will he make it clear that the intermediate areas that are not shown on the map and therefore are not clear will benefit from the European grants?

Mr. Lamont: The intermediate areas are listed in the order, and will qualify for ERDF. I am grateful for my

hon. Friend's first remarks, and he is quite right. Today we have done something that will lead to fewer anomalies, less job shuffling and fewer distortions

Mr. Michael Foot: How much of the alleged £300 million saving is attributable to the abolition of the special development areas? How much is attributable to Wales? What is the calculation in employment? Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that if this means any cut at all, he is hitting the areas that have already been hit hardest by the Government?

Mr. Lamont: I explained that half of the saving will come from the taking out of replacement investment and the requirement to create jobs. The rest of it comes from changes in the map and in the rate of grant. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are many changes in what I have announced today, compared with the previous map and system, and therefore it is extremely difficult to say precisely which saving is attributable to which particular thing. It is like comparing apples and oranges. They are different.
I do not accept that this will lead to more unemployment. The reverse is true. We are getting better value for money in terms of creating jobs. When we are spending so much money on regional policy, it must make sense to tie it more closely to the creation of jobs. What is the purpose of regional policy otherwise?

Sir Hector Monro: How are we to get regional infrastructure forestry grants if most of the United Kingdom afforestation is outwith the assisted areas?

Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, only those areas that are assisted areas will qualify. As regards the European dimension, I have said repeatedly that it will be much easier for people to qualify because the map of the assisted areas is larger.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Minister has obviously been able to treat the Secretary of State for Scotland with the contempt that he deserved, with a cut of £100 million in the Scottish budget. However, does he not understand that the Scots will bitterly resent this despoliation and rape of their country, and being treated as a Third world colony? Furthermore, will the Minister take on board the fact that unemployment in Scotland is still increasing? Scotland has so far donated about £30 billion in oil revenues to the United Kingdom. How can he justify to the Scottish people this transfer of jobs and money to the English west midlands?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman has an 18th-century attitude to these things. He thinks that money should be doled out on the basis of political pork barrelling and nothing else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall wait with interest to hear hon. Members' opinions, but the map has been drawn on the basis of objective criteria, and unemployment, long-term unemployment, job opportunities, industrial structure and peripherality, have all been taken into account. It is nonsense to say that Scotland has been badly treated. It is increasing its share of the inner tier, and maintaining its share of the outer tier.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that the fact that at long last some recognition has been paid to the problems of the west midlands by the application of schedule 2 of the order published today will cause some small cheer? We have tried to hammer home to the Government over the past


year or so that we have the highest long-term unemployment in Britain. Therefore, we think that the core of Birmingham, where we have lost 190,000 jobs, should be looked upon as schedule 1. How will the increased selective assistance be judged and by whom, because it will be important that Birmingham does not find itself losing business to Stratford and the more lush areas because they are also covered by schedule 2? Will he guarantee that he will not pay firms to move within the area so that people will get grants at Birmingham's expense yet again?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. In the past, regional policy has done great harm to the west midlands and has directed industry away from the west midlands and Birmingham. Even when Labour Governments were in power, unemployment in Birmingham was for many years higher than the national average, but they did nothing about giving it assisted area status. Although Birmingham has higher than the national average unemployment, this is the first time that it has been given any assisted area status.
We have also taken measures to prevent mere job shuffling within the assisted areas. That will mean that people will not be able to get grants merely for moving an operation from one assisted area to another, from one part of the Birmingham travel-to-work area to another, or from the inner tier to the outer tier. Mere job shuffling will not be possible.
Selective assistance will be determined by the West Midlands Industrial Development Advisory Board. It will take into account the special needs of the inner area of Birmingham. That is also properly the objective of the urban programme. Birmingham has a partnership area. No city in the United Kingdom receives more urban aid than Birmingham, which is receiving £24·5 million.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is bigger.

Mr. Lamont: All right—it is bigger, it has needs and it gets the largest amount.

Mr. Jack Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that this policy will almost certainly mean a reduction in assistance for the northern region? As the north has the highest rate of unemployment outside Northern Ireland, what possible justification can there be for this action? Is this not the best example we have yet had of so-called consultation being an utter sham? Is not the real reason for this action the desire for a reduction in public expenditure at any price in human terms?

Mr. Lamont: That is emphatically not the case. In fact, the northern region has done relatively well in this review of regional policy. Of course, there are savings coming from the northern region, but they are savings from the heavy, capital-intensive industries. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) admitted that there was a case for making those savings. His answer seems to be to exclude the chemical industry completely from regional development grants—to exclude the industry from the standard industrial classification. I do not believe that the chemical industry will like being completely excluded from obtaining access to regional assistance. We have applied the policy fairly

and objectively to all areas. Obviously, the northern region will have to have selective assistance rather than automatic assistance for the most capital-intensive projects. The region has been treated fairly.

Sir Paul Bryan: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has given some good criteria as the basis for his decisions? It is apparent that the only reason why Goole is not assisted is that it has been put into a travel-to-work area—as has Selby recently—which means that average unemployment has been reduced. Unemployment in Goole was just as high as in Scunthorpe and other places. I brought a delegation to my hon. Friend the Minister to explain to his Ministry that this is exactly what has happened.

Mr. Lamont: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Obviously, many hon. Members are worried about the composition of individual travel-to-work areas. The travel-to-work areas are compiled by the Department of Employment on the basis of observed facts — how people travel and work. I know that sometimes people find it difficult to accept reclassifications, but they are conducted on the basis of objective criteria. They are based on how people work and live. The minimum requirement is that 70 per cent. of the people who work in an area should live in it and 70 per cent. of those who live in an area should work in it. The reclassification has been done objectively.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Is the Minister aware that every representative of Scottish organisations who has commented on the White Paper has said that the total of regional aid should not be reduced. That fact has been ignored, and the Minister has come here today with a statement that will cost £100 million in Scotland. Is he aware that this action will be devastating to Scotland? Given our record levels of unemployment, his statement is deeply offensive and an insult to the unemployed.

Mr. Lamont: That is very dramatic language — [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] Smaller amounts of money can be equally effective in creating jobs. Much of the money that was deployed previously was doing nothing to create employment. Sometimes, by subsidising the most capital-intensive projects, that money was doing the opposite and creating problems within areas. Many of the representations that we received stated that there was ample room for savings in regional policy.

Mr. John Corrie: I thank my hon. Friend for including my entire constituency in the special development area. Is he aware that, when he drew up this report last week, unemployment in my constituency was 31 per cent. and that a further 200 men at the steel works had been made redundant, pushing that level beyond 31 per cent.? Does he agree that the maximum amount of finance should be spent in such areas to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Obviously, if a project in my hon. Friend's constituency qualifies for and is deserving of selective assistance, we shall consider it.

Mr. Roy Mason: Is the Minister aware that, during the past five years, there has been much investment in the coal industry in Barnsley and south Yorkshire, resulting in major technological changes underground and thousands of redundancies and lost job


opportunities? In these small, mono-economy coal-mining towns, it is obvious that the Minister has not taken that technological factor into account. He has not considered also the fact that, after the strike is over, the unemployment trends in those coal-mining towns will increase. There is an urgent need for a re-examination of his statement to give those towns the development status they will require to offset job losses in the pits and lost job opportunities

Mr. Lamont: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says. He must realise that we have to look at this matter overall. We must look in terms of not only of the unemployment throughout an area but where that unemployment has come from and the industries that have caused it. Decisions which have applied to the travel-to-work area in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency have been based on those statistics and the material available.
The right hon. Gentleman may know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy today announced a further increase in the money available for NCB industries to help alleviate the difficult problems caused by closures in these areas.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's step forward, I had hoped for a much more radical approach. As unemployment is, unfortunately, a characteristic of the whole country, did my hon. Friend look at the benefits that could arise by decreasing industrial taxation as a method of creating jobs rather than leaving us with what is becoming an antiquated regional policy support system?

Mr. Lamont: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. We are attacked from one side of the House for having made far too savage cuts, but some hon. Members feel that we could have gone further and been a bit more radical. I noticed that a writer in The Times this morning —I hasten to say that I had nothing to do with the article—in a rather accurate guess about what would be announced today, thought that we could have had a much more radical policy and gone further. My hon. Friend is right to believe that many of the jobs that have come into existence through regional policy would have done so anyway. Much of the policy has involved just shuffling jobs around from one part of the country to another. By lessening or stopping that we are benefiting the whole country.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is this statement not the final confirmation, if it were needed, of the fact that the Conservative party has completely abandoned its commitment to the one-nation philosophy? Is not the bottom line of the Minister's statement the £300 million that will now not go to the regions? Does the Minister recall that during the debates on the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill I and other Opposition Members demanded that the Minister tell us the scale of cuts that would occur under that legislation? Despite denying it then, only weeks and months ago, the hon. Gentleman has delivered a statement cutting £300 million from the regions. That action will further polarise and divide the country. Is it not a scandal that this is a further hammer blow on the unemployed and poorer regions?

Mr. Lamont: At no time did I deny that there would be cuts in regional policy. The measure has been expected.

The hon. Gentleman is not paying attention to the proposals. We are making this policy much more job-related. In the past, the policy has not created jobs. About 500,000 jobs over 20 years at a price in excess of £30,000 per job is not many jobs to have created with this policy. During the past 12 years, £4 billion has been spent on RDGs. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. We cannot solve the unemployment problem by regional policy. We can solve it only through general economic policy—by getting interest rates and inflation down—and that is what this policy is designed to help.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this news comes as a great disappointment to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). We find it difficult to know how my hon. Friend has interpreted the criteria he gave, particularly that of peripherality. In his statement my hon. Friend said that he would have to rely on areas to generate applications for European funds. By cutting from this scheme those who have great experience of the system and are able to do that, we could well be depriving the United Kingdom of substantial funds, particularly from the European Investment Bank, as we pointed out when we came to see him.

Mr. Lamont: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety. She has fought hard for her constituency. However, with the criteria that we used—unemployment is only one of the criteria that come into play — it was difficulty to justify intermediate area status for the travel-to-work areas within her constituency. Her constituency will not be eligible for ERDF, but it is not right to say that the country generally will miss out on ERDF.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And EIB.

Mr. Lamont: And EIB. The extension of the map and the changes we have made in the structure of the grant—the removal of replacement investment—will make it possible for us to obtain more money out of Europe not less. That was one of the considerations in our mind.

Mr. Laurence Cunliffe: How can the Minister justify the phoney and biased policy measures that he has announced today, which will result in cuts of £140 million over the next five years in the north-west region? Because of this Government's senseless economic policies, it is a region that has already lost 250,000 jobs since the Government came into power. Will he further confirm that the criteria mean that many skillcentres within the affected areas will have to close, thus confirming that the Government are not interested in producing potential technologists for the future growth industries of this country? Does he further agree that the criteria on which he bases the policy discriminate, because it is a financial imposition, against mostly working class and distressed areas?

Mr. Lamont: I do not accept that it will have the draconian and the drastic effect on the north-west that the hon. Gentleman suggests. One of the ways that the north-west could benefit from these changes is through the fact that we are extending the grants to services. That change should be welcomed in the House. It means that many activities where there is a prospect of a real growth in


employment and which have never had encouragement or benefited from regional policy in the past will now receive it.

Mr. Fred Silvester: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on walking carefully though this minefield? Although the north-west wants more public expenditure, it does not want ineffective public expenditure. I thank him for breaking away from the tyranny of travel-to-work areas in Manchester. However, is not the £10,000 capital limit rather low in terms of the number of jobs that can be provided by capital-intensive industries?

Mr. Lamont: I do not know whether I have tiptoed through the minefield. I think that I have hit one or two mines. But I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I agree that we do not want ineffective public expenditure. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about the treatment of Manchester. Manchester was the only TTWA to be treated in that way, for the special reason that I explained earlier. I said that the £10,000 will enable us to give automatic grants to projects that are double the rate of the average capital intensity in British industry. I do not believe that it is niggardly, but even if it were, it is still open to us to assist those projects with selective assistance in addition to automatic assistance. We are increasing selective assistance. There will be an increase of some 35 per cent. in selective assistance so, when the new scheme is fully operational, that will be available in addition to automatic grants. We shall have the discretion to aid projects when we believe that it is right to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that great resentment will be felt in my constituency about the fact that less money is being spent, although it is tempered by a little relief in Tameside and Denton that some of the assistance that they had under a Labour Government is being restored to them? The Stockport part of my constituency will be completely bewildered. It has the highest level of unemployment in my constituency. The Brinnington area has over 25 per cent. unemployment. Those areas have not been included. Will he study the boundaries, because it is crazy that the people who live in Denton will have the best chance to look for jobs in some of the development sites which are available in Stockport?

Mr. Lamont: As I have explained to many hon. Members already, the policy has inevitably been based on the travel-to-work area concept. As regards the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am sure that he will do his best to ensure that the maximum resentment is felt about the fact that less money is being spent on his constituency. I wonder whether he ever asks his constituents to consider whether money could be better spent rather than that more should be spent.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by my constituents in Bristol, because they are fed up with jobs being poached from Bristol, with Government assistance, and taken over the Bristol channel into Wales, and with the destruction of industry in Bristol by industry in Wales, again with Government assistance. Can we hope that in time we shall see an end to all the economic distortions that are caused by this type of assistance?

Mr. Lamont: I cannot go as far as my hon. Friend, but there will be less distortion. I know that there have been very strong feelings in Bristol about the effect of assisted area status and the poaching of industry and jobs. Bristol will plainly not be so badly affected in future.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Did the Minister even consider the case of the Isle of Wight? Does he appreciate the problems of an offshore island? Does he know that in some parts of the constituency male unemployment is over 30 per cent.? [Interruption] I lost a tooth this morning, that is the reason for that. Is the Minister aware that further redundancies are in the pipeline? What help can he offer, because we desperately need some assistance from the Government to restore our economy?

Mr. Lamont: Of course we studied the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I am afraid that the blunt truth is that on the objective criteria his constituency does not merit assisted area status.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Minister accept that the figures he gave of saving £300 million and leaving a budget, as I understand it, of £400 million, represent a cut of virtually 50 per cent. in regional aid? That was never forecast. Why is the Minister so rigidly tied to travel-to-work areas for Birmingham, whose travel-to-work area now includes Stratford-on-Avon, which dilutes the unemployment figures? Has the Minister reneged on the commitment that he gave last week to visit Birmingham and see for himself the inner core area where 300,000 people live? On his Department's figures, that is now the largest centre of concentrated urban deprivation in this country — bar none. His statement completely ignores the position in Birmingham, and if I were a Tory Back Bencher, I should resign the Whip tonight because the Government have failed to help Birmingham.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman might be trying to convey a message to someone. The figures that the hon. Gentleman gives about the cuts are correct. The figure will be cut from £670 million to £400 million in 1987–88. We believe that that cut is justified and sensible. As regards the problems of the inner city of Birmingham, I have already explained that the area has partnership status, and the urban aid programme is designed specifically to deal with those inner city problems. Birmingham is receiving over £24·5 million to deal with it. The Birmingham area as a whole does not qualify for inner tier status on the basis of unemployment; 21 per cent. of the country has worse unemployment than the Birmingham travel-to-work area. It is a fact that 21 per cent. of the country has unemployment worse than the whole Birmingham travel-to-work area, and we cannot, any more than the previous Labour Government did, depart from the travel-to-work area principle.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will my hon. Friend recognise that in Thanet, in the south-east, I represent the travel-to-work area with the highest unemployment rate not included in an assisted status area? We believe that in that area we can create employment through private enterprise and private investment, but we cannot do it with one hand tied behind our back.
Will my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members believe that in thanking him for what he has done today we must take the opportunity to remind him that he


has gone nowhere near far enough? Instead of regional aid, we should like to see sectoral aid, which would help industry nationwide.

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said. He will appreciate that we have moved a long way from the principle of giving automatic assistance. We have moved towards meeting the suggestion made by many of my hon. Friends that we should have not sectoral aid but more discretionary aid, rather than automatic aid. We have moved a long way in that direction.
At present, 65 to 70 per cent. of regional aid is automatic and the rest is discretionary. When the new scheme is established, the proportions of automatic and discretionary aid will be about fifty-fifty.
My hon. Friend's constituency can also be helped by section 4 money for tourism. We shall do all we can to see whether there are projects in his constituency worthy of support.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that on Merseyside and no doubt elsewhere there will be deep disappointment in the construction industry? If the Minister is serious in wanting to apply aid to the creation of jobs, he can do no better than encourage the construction industry.
Will the Minister speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the utter failure of partnership policies in the inner city of Liverpool, which has been deprived of most of the regional aid so far given to Merseyside?
Will the Minister look again at the boundaries of the new Merseyside development area, which takes in large parts of rural north Wales and Cheshire?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair. Merseyside emerges relatively well from the changes that have been announced. Liverpool retains its SDA status and the partnership—[Interruption.] I mean its DA status—its inner tier status. It will also qualify for selective assistance. Merseyside and the adjoining areas have done relatively well out of the package.

Mr. Tony Speller: Will my hon. Friend accept, as I have always done, that development status in its various forms has depended first on employment and secondly on location? If so, why has he permitted the Department of Employment to massage figures so that areas in the west country and in places such as Ilfracombe, with 35 per cent. unemployment, are merged with larger areas, and all of them losing their status?
Can my hon. Friend give any reasoned explanation why those areas on the periphery of Britain which do not have the rateable values to finance their own infrastructure are to be left wholly destitute of Government funds, in aid of I know not what—except perhaps the game of pass the parcel?

Mr. Lamont: I appreciate my hon. Friend's disappointment, but 35 per cent. of the country will still be covered by assisted area status. I do not think that it would make any sense to raise that percentage to 40 or 45 per cent. It would be nonsense to have almost half the country covered by assisted area status. Even taking account of its location and of peripherality, it is difficult to make out a case for the travel-to-work area which covers my hon. Friend's constituency.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings about the composition of the travel-to-work area. [Interruption.] Of course it was not a fiddle. He will appreciate that some changes in travel-to-work areas are of benefit to people in qualifying for assisted area status, and some are not. Inevitably, there are both winners and losers.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How can the Minister say that jobs will not be lost as a result of the cuts when British industry is to lose £300 million out of its budget each year?

Mr. Lamont: It will not be lost, because the policy will be aimed much more specifically at the creation of jobs. British industry will benefit from the strengthening of our financial and economic policies which results from the package.

Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Greater Manchester, specifically in regard to ending the unfair and discriminatory system which previously operated?
I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues for having listened to the representations made to them by industry, trade unions and the local authority concerning Trafford Park. His help is much appreciated.

Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the inner area will also continue to qualify for support from the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: Will the Minister tell the House how he will ensure that the £10,000 capital grants will lead to what the Prime Minister used to describe as real or permanent jobs, as against transient jobs? Will he abandon the nauseating charade that the exercise has anything to do with jobs? It is related to cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right in speaking of a £10,000 capital grant. It is a capital grant on which there is a £10,000 cost per job limit.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we shall ensure that the jobs last. The normal provisions that applied previously to regional development grants in regard to the recovery of grants will apply.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that it is a charade and nothing to do with creating jobs. We made it clear in our White Paper that we felt that it made no sense that the large sums of money employed on regional policy — and they are large sums — were not related specifically to the creation of employment. What else is the purpose of the policy?

Mr. Keith Raffan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 90 per cent. of the Welsh people will be covered by some form of assisted area status? Will he also confirm that, contrary to the Opposition's assertions, the levels of grant will still be quite sufficient to attract internationally mobile investment?

Mr. Lamont: Taking account of the activities of the Board for the Development of Rural Wales, a large part of Wales will be covered and eligible for assistance of one kind or another.
We shall be able not only to give automatic regional development grants for inward investment. We shall be able to award selective assistance on top of those to attract the internationally mobile projects that we want here.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Minister aware that there is such an area as west Yorkshire? Apart from Bradford, he seems to think that it does not exist. Is he aware that in the past three years there have been eight colliery closures in west Yorkshire?
Is the Minister aware of the very serious situation that has developed in the Castleford travel-to-work area? I think that he must be, because I have frequently drawn it to his attention. There appears to have been a complete fiddle on the reassessment of the boundaries, because the rural areas have been included to cover up the black spots in the travel-to-work areas. That has happened in Castleford. We enjoyed intermediate area status prior to 1981. As the situation is now much worse than it was then, why have we not qualified?

Mr. Lamont: Both the travel-to-work area and our decision on it were based on objective criteria, taking into account occupational structure, long-term unemployment and industrial change.
The hon. Gentleman says that the travel-to-work area is too large, but it is related to where people live, where work is available, and where they travel to work. That was the building block used by the previous Labour Government for regional policy.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I deeply regret that my hon. Friend has not paid more heed to the devastation caused in Birmingham by unemployment. In dealing with Manchester, why has he used a different basis of adjudication? Does he realise that the policy of including the travel-to-work areas in the west midlands' will mean including Stratford-upon-Avon, Sutton Coldfield, Solihull, Redditch and other areas where equal external investment can be drawn from abroad into Birmingham?
What does my hon. Friend propose to do to overcome the problem? Unemployment in the area has risen in the past 13 years by twice as much as in Wales and Scotland put together. What instructions will he give to the industrial advisory body that he mentioned to look particularly at the inner areas of Birmingham and other large cities?

Mr. Lamont: The case of Manchester raises a different question from that of Birmingham. The question about Manchester was simply whether part of it could qualify for outer tier status. As I explained, we were absolutely on the margin of the 35 per cent. that would have been approved by the European Commission and we had the prospect of getting only part of Manchester in. It was a question only of whether part of it could qualify for outer tier status, whereas what has been said in respect of Birmingham is that a large part of the central core should have qualified for inner tier status, which would be a different matter. With regard to what we shall do to try to secure inward investment, I shall ensure that the West Midlands Industrial Development Advisory Board takes account of the special problems of the inner core of Birmingham. I shall ensure that there is the closest possible co-operation between my Department and the Department of the Environment. Of course, the strong support from the Department of the Environment in dealing with the problems of inner Birmingham will continue.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: This is a black day for the regions of the United Kingdom—

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Beith: I should like to ask you humbly, Mr. Speaker—with no vested interest—on behalf of many hon. Members, whether you agree, given that the business to follow the statement is open-ended and can go on to any hour, that there should be further time for questions on the statement.

Mr. Speaker: I fully realise the importance of this matter. The House has heard the Minister say that there will be a debate on it. Motions have already been tabled in respect of several of the orders and there will be further opportunities to discuss the matter. I shall bear in mind the right hon. and hon. Members whom I have not been able to call during questions on the statement. I have given slightly over an hour to it, which is more than double the normal time. I think that in fairness to the succeeding business we should move on.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am taking the point of order from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Williams: Will you confirm my impression, Mr. Speaker, that towards the end of the statement over 40 Members were still trying to catch your eye? If you confirm that, may I, through you, draw that fact to the attention of the Leader of the House and ask whether it is regarded as confirming our request that more than one day should be given to a debate on this subject?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: All right. Let us have all the points of order together.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, you did not manage to call any Member from the black country. This is an area that suffers the most serious social deprivation imaginable and I must express my surprise that not a single black country Member was called.

Mr. Duffy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that not one Member from Sheffield was called? It is a great city, and it is covered by the statement. We know that the Government are exercising a policy of political vengeance against Sheffield. I know that you would not risk being thought a party to that policy, but the overlooking of Sheffield is a repeated occurrence on such occasions in the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that after questions and answers on the statement have finished we shall move on to the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill, and that the chances are that, if Second Reading is anything to go by, the House will be occupied by 20 Members at the most and that for the votes there will be about 120 against 14, and that the Bill itself is nothing more than a dog's dinner, would it not make sense—just a little sense — to give another half an hour to allow hon.


Members to make their points? I have not been rising in my place because I have been to another meeting, exercising some influence there—[interruption.]—rather successfully. I may add. Therefore, it does not really matter whether we lose half an hour from the Committee stage of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill. Let us get on with this very important matter.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulty on such an occasion. It is exceedingly difficult. I never question whom you call, and I do not mind not being called, but today several Members from Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester were called, but hon. Members representing Stoke-on-Trent, the most neglected and deprived industrial city in Great Britain, have not been called. I submit to you with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that an opportunity should have been offered to Members representing Stoke-on-Trent to express their point of view.

Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulty but there is a particular point that Members from the north of Scotland wish to put to the Minister about the Highlands and Islands Development Board area. I appreciate that perhaps you were not to know that there might be a peculiarity in that, but if the time for questions were extended, that point might be elucidated by the Minister.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said that no one from the black country had been invited by you to take part in questioning the Minister. Is it not a fact that every hon. Member who has been called represents part of a very black country today?

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would also be helpful if you called members from the city of Leeds. No one from Leeds has been called, and there are points that we should like to raise. It seems that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the opportunity of a few more minutes on the statement, so that they could question the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I fully appreciate the feelings of hon. Members who have not been called. There are about 650 hon. Members in the House. If we take away 100 members of the Government, that leaves 550, and it is literally impossible to call every hon. Member. With regard to the succeeding business, I must say in fairness to Northern Ireland Members that they are as much Members of the House as anyone else.

Mr. Skinner: They do not want the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rare for Northern Ireland Members to have the opportunity of debating early in the day. I think that the House should take that into account.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: This is a black day for the regions of the United Kingdom. Is the Minister aware that nothing that was said today changes the simple fact that the Government have dealt a mortal blow to regional policy? Not satisfied with the reduction in regional assistance of 35 per cent. compared to assistance under

Labour Administration, the Government have today chopped a further £300 million per annum from regional assistance. Will the Minister confirm that that is a 42 per cent. cut in the present reduced level of regional assistance and an enormous reduction of 77 per cent. since the Government came to office?
Is the Minister aware that behind the beguiling and specious propositions of cost-effectiveness and a greater link to jobs lies the stark truth, the harsh reality. that all that the Government are interested in is a reduction of public expenditure? The map of the outer tier areas has been widely drawn to enable eligibility for European funds. We welcome that. However, other areas have been downgraded and the Minister will be under no illusion about how deeply that will be resented in the House and the country.
Does the Minister not realise that European funds are no E1 Dorado for the United Kingdom regions? The ERDF will account for only 5·6 per cent. of the EC budget this year while the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC budget this year is equivalent to the total ERDF regional assistance.
Some areas are to be designated which were not designated before. The west midlands is a welcome, if limited example. Nevertheless the inner core of Birmingham, with 230,000 people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to ask a question. This not a debate.

Mr. Robinson: I am asking the Minister why the inner area of Birmingham with 230,000 people and 30 per cent. unemployment is not included in the inner core.
Is the Minister aware that his statement marks the end of regional policy as developed by successive Governments but that a Labour Government will renew regional policy and rebuild the regions of this nation?

Mr. Lamont: In Committee on the Bill which put in place the structure for the detailed announcements made today, the Opposition admitted that many worthwhile savings could be made, especially on heavily capital-intensive projects. Those form a large part of the savings that we now intend to achieve.
The ERDF is significant for regional policy and we hope to get about £300 million per year out of it.
This is not the end of regional policy. It is the start of a more cost-effective, more job-oriented regional policy. We believe that, pound for pound, we can get more jobs and better value for money.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Roland Boyes

Mr. Andrew Hunter

Mr. Francis Maude

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Regional Policy as it affects Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration. — [Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day — Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 20 November]

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

VOTERS TO PRODUCE PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 2 and insert
'in any case where the provisions of Rule 35, as amended by this section apply, unless the presiding officer decides, after taking into consideration any document produced to him, that there is no reasonable doubt that the voter is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
'(1B) With a view to reaching his decision under the foregoing paragraph, the officer or clerk may invite the voter to produce to him a prescribed document or more than one prescribed documents and shall, if the voter complies, take that document or documents into consideration in reaching his decision, without prejudice to consideration of any other evidence which the voter may produce'.
No. 24, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'(2A) The following shall be inserted after rule 36 (challenge of voter)—
(36A) At the time a person applies for a ballot paper, a candidate or his election or polling agent may require the presiding officer or clerk to produce to him any document which that person has produced to the presiding officer or clerk under the foregoing provisions of this section.".'.
No. 26, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'(2A) The following shall be inserted after Rule 35(3)—
(4(A)) The presiding officer may, and if required by a candidate or his election or polling agent shall, require any person applying for a ballot paper at the time of his application, but not afterwards, to produce to him a prescribed document.
(4(B)) Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph the presiding officer shall be entitled to take into consideration any document produced to him by the person, which is not a prescribed document but appears to the presiding officer to be relevant to the question whether the person is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.".'.

Mr. Powell: As the House, or what is left of it, proceeds to address itself with joyous anticipation to spending the whole of the remainder of today's sitting until the early hours of tomorrow morning on legislation for Northern Ireland, it is perhaps permissible to remind or inform hon. Members that this arises from no wish of hon. Members representing the Province but from the practice of successive Administrations, which still belatedly persists, of seeking to treat Northern Ireland separately and in isolation from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is as a result of that fact that a day of parliamentary time which other hon. Members might think could have been better used is not available for their purposes.
Your perspicacity, Mr. Walker, has noted that amendment No. 26 and amendment No. 25 form a single proposition. In your wisdom, you have also grouped

amendments Nos. 3 and 24 with those amendments. You will be aware, however, that they raise substantially, if not entirely, different issues. I hope, therefore, that you will agree to my dealing with them separately in my speech and that you will accept a formal application at this stage for amendments Nos. 3 and 24 to be called separately for Division when the time comes in view of the fact that they raise substantially different issues.

The Chairman: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking for two Divisions or just one Division on amendments Nos. 3 and 24?

Mr. Powell: I was being greedy, Mr. Walker. Both amendments involve separate issues germane to themselves. I hoped, therefore, that you would be willing to allow them to be called for Division in due course.

The Chairman: It might be sensible for me to see how the debate goes and to reach a decision in the light of that.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Walker.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 represent a serious attempt by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself within the general scope of the Bill to meet the two major difficulties that the legislation presents. One is a constitutional difficulty and the other a practical one.
The constitutional difficulty is that the Bill as it stands creates a new qualification, in Northern Ireland only, for the exercise of the franchise. If the vote can be exercised only on production of a specified document whether or not there be any real doubt as to the identity of the voter asking for it, the legislation in effect creates a new and additional condition for the franchise being exercised at all in that part of the United Kingdom. The fact that it is specific to just one part of the United Kingdom will no doubt arise later in our deliberations when we reach the debate on clause 7 stand part.
Our other objective in framing the amendment is of a practical nature. We fear that this requirement imposed automatically on every voter, irrespective of the circumstances and irrespective of the fact that the vast majority of voters are not merely who they represent themselves to be but are well known to be such persons, will not only cause resentment and loss of votes at many polling stations in Northern Ireland but will result in congestion of proceedings at the polling stations, which itself will cast discredit on the validity of the results of any election. We have therefore sought—within the general concept of the Bill, and accepting for the purposes of these amendments the concept of prescribed documents—to make amendments which will meet both the constitutional and the practical difficulty. In short, what we propose is that it should be competent for the polling agent to insist, and open to the presiding officer in his discretion to decide, that the presiding officer should demand one of the prescribed documents from a voter as regards whom the question has been raised whether he is the person shown on the electoral register. Upon that challenge being made, or that doubt being entertained by the presiding officer, the document would have to be produced. Otherwise, the suspected voter would not be issued with a ballot paper. A ballot paper would be issued only if the presiding officer, decided that there was no reasonable doubt that he was the voter indicated in the electoral register.
This is a procedure to which we on this Bench do not come fresh. On Second Reading the Minister referred to


certain consultations which had taken place earlier, and in particular to propositions put forward in the spring of 1982 outlining the thoughts which at that time were unformed in the Government's mind but which eventually led to the drawing up of the Bill. He suggested—by, I think, an unintentional error—that the proposition of prescribing mandatory documents had been accepted on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party.
It might therefore be right for me to put on record what we actually said in a letter written to the former Secretary of State by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on 6 July 1982. I do so not in order to trespass upon the patience of the Committee, but because my right hon. Friend's words expressed very precisely the arrangements which in the amendments we are trying to introduce into the Bill. My right hon. Friend wrote:
It is already, in our belief, the duty of the presiding officer not to issue a ballot paper except to a person who he is satisfied is an elector specified on the register who has not received a ballot paper already…We consider that presiding officers should be fortified with advice from the Secretary of State as to the manner in which they should be so satisfied. We do not consider this advice need be given in the form of law.
We are therefore pressing an amendment which is entirely in line with the advice that we tendered to the Government when consulted on this question some two and a half years ago.
As regards our proposal that the polling agents should be given the new right and function of challenging the production of documentary evidence if they are in doubt as to a voter's identity, it is interesting that the previous Secretary of State wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 March 1983 as follows:
The presiding officers will be reminded of the importance of confronting suspected personators and the RUC stand ready to make arrests and prevent intimidation"—
that is a matter that we shall consider in relation to later amendments—
but they cannot act
the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the law as it then existed and now exists—
until polling agents challenge.
That is what we propose in the amendment, in connection with the documentary procedure. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
I appreciate that this is sometimes difficult because of the risk of intimidation in certain areas, but it appears to me that the presence of polling agents in areas where personation is likely to be most prevalent, together with vigorous challenging of suspected personators, should make a substantial difference.
It cannot, therefore, be argued that our amendment throws upon the personation agents, as they are called, or polling agents, in certain areas of the Province or in general, an unreasonable onus. On the contrary, it is useful because it does not deprive the presiding officer entirely of discretion. It nevertheless shields him from the direct imputation of any partisanship — of picking on a particular elector to require that he should produce a prescibed document.
We ask the Government at this stage most sincerely and carefully to consider whether they need to incur the risks of fouling up the electoral process at forthcoming elections, and whether they need to perpetuate the addition of a new qualification for elections in one province only of the United Kingdom, when the alternative is as acceptable and as practicable a procedure as is set out in the amendments.
I will not seek to gild the lily but will invite the Minister —who has, I believe, had a day or two to study the amendments—to address his mind without prejudice to the possibility of following this course of action.
I appreciate that the amendment removes the automatic necessity of a prescribed document in the case of every voter. I make no apology for that, because it is that universal mandatory requirement of a prescribed document which in our view creates the two serious points of criticism, constitutional and practical.
To my right hon. and hon. Friends, that is the major point in these amendments. I now move on to consider amendment No. 3, which deals with the situation when the presiding officer is presented with a prescribed document which does not perfectly match the circumstances of the elector whom the voter represents himself to be. I am afraid that this has become the Upper Bann case in the course of our debates, because of the lamentably out-of-date condition of the medical card which it might fall to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) in such circumstances to produce as a condition of exercising his franchise and being able to vote for himself.
In response, we have been told that the presiding officer would use his common sense. That is the phrase which has more than once fallen from the Minister's lips. We asked what common sense embraces. The result was far from satisfactory. The Minister said at one stage that of course the presiding officer would know my hon. Friend by sight, and would therefore give him his ballot paper despite the fact that the prescribed document showed the wrong address. That is not satisfactory, because there might be someone in exactly the same situation as my hon. Friend, but who had recently moved from another part of the Province or the United Kingdom and was therefore not so well known to the presiding officer.
Another situation might arise which falls within the scope of common sense but which we believe should be specifically recognised and legislated for in the interests of fairness and of the proper guidance and control of the actions of the presiding officers. Let us suppose that the elector comes along with a prescribed document which, on the face of it, could raise some doubt. The address, for example, might be out of date. The elector has provided himself with the means of rebutting any doubt which such a defect might raise—he has in his pocket, among other things, a rent demand and some letters that have been addressed to him at his new address. He might even have a polling card which shows his name against the new address. As we read the clause, it would not be in the power of the presiding officer to use his common sense and to take note of the extra documents provided by the voter, however genuine the voter might be or however relevant those extra documents might be to the point at issue. As we read the clause, the presiding officer will be obliged to say, "No. I am looking at the document and it is not good enough and you will not get your vote."
5.30 pm
We do not believe that that is satisfactory legislation. We believe that it should be relaxed in the mariner suggested in amendment No. 3, which would permit the presiding officer to take into account another document or other documents, and to consider other evidence which the voter might produce. Surely, if this matter is to be governed by common sense, and if we do not want persons


openly acknowledged to be the elector purported to be deprived of their ballot, we have to give some such specific discretion to the presiding officer. Let not the Minister say, "Oh, that would expose the presiding officer to all kinds of intimidation and complaints of partiality," because we are already inviting him to come to a reasonable conclusion. Yet, on the face of the wording of the clause, we are depriving him of the means by which any reasonable man would seek to arrive at a reasonable conclusion on the basis of the prescribed documents which were presented to him.
Perhaps this result could be achieved more economically and deftly by other drafting than that which appears on the Order Paper. I hope that the Minister will be able to recognise that there is a difficulty here and that the nature of the common sense which he invoked on behalf of the presiding officer should be more precisely defined in the wording of the clause. I understand that we have another stage of the Bill to come and that there will be an opportunity for this matter to be considered further. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give further attention to the wording of clause 1(2)(1B) to avoid apparently exclusive attention to the document which is enjoined by it.
That leaves me with amendment No. 24, the subject of which is essentially different. It in no way involves the amendment, about the acceptance or otherwise—either of the wording or of the principle—of which I have just been addressing the Committee. It is a separate point which stands in its own right. It is that the polling agent —I say the polling agent, but technically the candidate and his election agent are all always included in these functions—may have a sight of a prescribed document which is produced under the terms of the Bill. I ask you, Mr. Walker, to envisage the circumstances in which the polling agent is convinced, from his own personal knowledge, that the person asking for the ballot paper and producing the prescribed document is not the elector whose name appears on the electoral roll. The prescribed document is produced and the presiding officer, without apparently batting an eyelid, proceeds to hand out a ballot paper to that elector. It seems perverse that we should leave matters in that condition and that the polling agent ought not to be able to say to the presiding officer, "Sir, I demand the right to see the prescribed document which has been produced to you." It might well be—in the majority of cases it would no doubt be—the case that there was no ground for reasonable doubt on the face of the document.
Alternatively, there is the case in which the presiding officer rejected a document presented by a person whom the polling agent well knew to be Mrs. So-and-so, whose name appeared on the register. Surely it would be right for him to say to the presiding officer, "I should like to have a look at that before you make your decision to refuse a vote to Mrs. So-and-so." It is an invidious position in which the Bill as it stands places the presiding officer. He is faced with a document that no one else can see and of which nobody else has any notion. They do not know which of the prescribed documents it is. With that and nothing else in front of him he says, "Go away. I shall not give you a ballot paper." Alternatively, he hands over the ballot paper with no possibility of challenge. That cannot be regarded as reasonable and I therefore hope that the

Minister will consider that the case for giving polling agents access to the evidence of on which a voter is identified or not is logical and that to concede it would make the duty of the presiding officer under this legislation less difficult than we apprehend that it might otherwise be.

Mr. William Ross: I find it strange and rather sad that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), whose party is alleged to have suffered most in recent elections from vote-stealing by Sinn Fein, should be absent from the debate rather than here to ensure that, through a much improved Bill, he will not suffer in that way again.
It is alleged that most of the vote-stealing takes place in relatively small areas, that in those areas it is highly organised and that it is extremely difficult to stop. We have already been through most of the arguments about that, but there is no harm in preaching a good sermon a second, third or fourth time in the hope that the Minister will have borne in upon him the fact that those of us who have experienced these things and have had to be on our guard against them know rather more about it than most of those who read only the newspapers in offices and try to formulate ideas and practices that will defeat the people who do these things.
Some of us are so anxious about what the Government have proposed precisely because of our personal knowledge. We are therefore keen to improve the Bill. So far, the Government have been decidedly reluctant to listen to the real experts. They have preferred to listen to what I describe, with the greatest respect, as interested amateurs. We who have suffered and been engaged in preventing these things believe that what the Government have proposed will not do the job. We are therefore most anxious that amendments such as those which have been proposed be accepted and that the problems of vote-stealers be much increased.
This group of amendments attempts to identify an applicant for a ballot paper as accurately and as quickly as possible. There is no point in having a system which, because of snags, snarls up the process, leads to long delays and, if not in the first election then in later ones, would double or treble the number of boxes required for a corresponding increase in the number of officials. Sometimes it is difficult to obtain a sufficient number of officials to man the polling stations and to ensure that everyone entitled to vote gets a ballot paper and is able to do so.
The difficulty of identifying the individual according to the name on the electoral register will arise again and again in our debates. Even if we do not convince everyone in the Department, I believe that by the time we end those debates we shall have convinced the Minister, who I think is fairly well convinced already, that we are not that wide of the mark.
As well as trying to identify the applicant as quickly and as easily as possible—and trying to make the voting procedure as quick and as simple as possible—we are trying to give some discretion to the various officials involved. That discretion is completely wiped out by the Bill, and it is necessary that they be given some freedom to act. They simply do not have that freedom at present. We are asking for an increase in the power of polling agents simply because we who have had long experience of these matters see them as one of the principal factors


in the front line. They are the infantry down in the trenches, fighting the battle and doing their best to stop the evil practices that are now occurring.
Our amendments propose a system that will avoid the considerable danger in the Bill of denying ballot papers to thousands who are entitled to them, but are barred from receiving them only because of the severe restriction on the number of prescribed documents. The Government are as anxious as we are to stop this malpractice, but are surprisingly reluctant to take the vital steps that are necessary to achieve that. In the absence of an identity card, nothing will beat local knowledge. People who live in the area, be it town or country, who know their neighbours and a large proportion of the electorate, are best able to stop such malpractice.
Only those willing to accept this job will act as polling agents. One cannot ask voluntary organisations or call for volunteers to do something which they do not want. People will go into the polling stations to act for party and candidate only if they are committed and prepared to take the risks associated with their mere presence in those polling stations. If people refuse point blank to do this job, we must look for someone else.
I have occasionally had bitter experience of trying to man difficult polling stations, and I know the difficulty of getting people to sit there all day and perform their duties. No one has said that it is easy to get people to take a stand, essentially against the gunmen and their front men. It is not easy to ask someone to make a target of himself in a dangerous area. It says a lot about the courage of those involved that they are prepared to take the risks associated with this occupation to do what is necessary to defend democracy. They should be given the fullest opportunity to carry out that defensive task.
Those who object to polling agents being given this right do not understand what is involved. Such a person must have a detailed knowledge of the area and population, and must be able to identify those who are most likely to indulge in these practices.
5.45 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) explained that if polling agents were given this right it would shield the presiding officer, clerk or any other official in the polling station. This is especially important in areas such as west Belfast, the west bank of the Foyle in Londonderry and certain villages where these practices occur most frequently. In such areas the theft of votes by Sinn Fein is rampant, and it is in those areas that we need public-spirited people who believe in the democratic principle enough to sit all day to defend that principle.
When they do so, they cannot be accused of doing something wrong. Everyone knows why they are there, and by and large there is no real objection to their presence. However, if the presiding officer, who may be the headmaster or a teacher from the school being used as a polling station, lives in an area where Sinn Fein vote-stealing occurs on a massive scale, the only people to whom he will object will be those who indulge in vote-stealing on behalf of Sinn Fein. Inevitably such a presiding officer will be seen as taking a stand against that party and its supporters. He will be accused of doing so and will be placed in a difficult position in the community. That charge cannot be levelled against the representatives of the parties, who will be at the polling stations because they are

partisan. Their job is to represent their parties and candidates. They are expected by all concerned to take the risks and to issue such challenges. There is no good reason why they should not be given the right of challenge, which is basically a mere extension of the right they already possess.
I appreciate that some people will object to polling agents seeing these documents on the grounds that they contain private information which the holder does not wish to be made public, but genuine electors, who have nothing to fear, will not be unwilling to allow their medical card to be seen. What is on a medical card or driving licence which is so private that it cannot be made public? I cannot think of any such information, and I cannot think of any real objection to allowing polling agents to see such documents.
A lady may say that she is 21 when, in fact. she is slightly older, but that should be fairly obvious before the card is produced. That is the only objection which could be construed as valid, but that should not be allowed to stand in the way of those who are determined to stop this Sinn Fein activity.
As we said earlier, only Sinn Fein will practise such vote-stealing in future. The benign personation which has taken place previously will thoroughly become a thing of the past. We are dealing with the hard core who are militant, violent and vicious and the amendments set out the approach that the Government must take in their efforts to stop Sinn Fein continuing its illegal practices. That is what we are asking for and we see no reason why the Government should not accept amendments in an effort to put the blinkers on Sinn Fein for ever.

Mr. Harold McCusker: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) is concerned that the Bill might not do the job for which it is designed and I am concerned that it may contribute to improvements but in so doing cause more problems than it solves. Like my hon. Friend, I shall rehearse some of the arguments that I advanced when we considered the Bill previously.
In any election in Northern Ireland, between 500,000 and 750,000 vote. We are concerned about 10,000 or, at most, 20,000 votes being abused by being stolen or personated. I shall echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said. By introducing the Bill, the Government appear to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are being asked to lay an onus on 600,000 or 700,000 to prevent 10,000 or 20,000 votes being stolen. A voter acquires a vote by dint of producing a document as distinct from proving that he is a person who is entitled to vote. We are all in favour of assisting the Government to end abuse and we believe that it should be ended by the person who wants to vote being called upon to produce identification and evidence that he is that person, as distinct from merely producing a document.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has made it clear that he is as concerned about vote-stealing as Unionist Members. He implied that he acknowledges the distinction between personation, as we have known it in the past, and vote-stealing. He intervened in the Minister's speech to make that point. I am sure that he would be happly to see personating eliminated, but he was expressing his concern especially about vote-stealing.
What does vote-stealing amount to? Remember it is vote-stealing to which the Bill is addressing itself. If there had been the same concern about the other form of personating, we would have legislated before now. Vote-stealing has challenged the democratic process in Northern Ireland, or it is threatening to do so.
A vote-stealer has disregard for the democratic process and for the officials who administer elections. He is prepared—this happens usually early on in the day and at specific polling stations—to enter a polling station to demand someone else's vote. He is given that vote without having to produce any evidence.
The Government are saying, "If we force the potential vote-stealer to produce some evidence, that will deter him." I dispute that. If, in essence, there is vote-stealing at the point of a gun, even if the vote-stealer does not have a gun in his hand, the presiding officer will be conscious of the indirect presence of the gun. I address myself specifically to amendment No. 26. If someone is dedicated and determined to steal votes and to continue to do so, he will have with him in the polling station a small buff card. He will present it to the presiding officer, who is probably the local headmaster or headmistress or teacher of the school where the voting is taking place. The presiding officer will probably be a teacher in that school. Alternatively the officer will be a local person in the village. The officer will have a small buff form presented to him and at the same time two eyes will be drilling into him. Those eyes will imply that unless he accepts the document that is offered as a prescribed document and gives the potential voter a vote, there will be something else drilling into him. The presiding officer will deliver the vote.
I suggest that the real deterrent lies with the police officer behind the presiding officer. The piece of buff paper may or may not be a medical card or it may resemble one. It may or may not belong to someone else. It may be a piece of paper that is the size of the medical card with certain information on it. In the present circumstances, the presiding officer has to keep such a document secret. How will he tell the police that it is a false document without putting himself at grave risk? I do not know how he will do that. If the onus is on him to make a judgment on the basis of a piece of paper that is four and a half inches by three inches, with or without printing, he will probably look at it, look at the individual confronting him and hand over the ballot paper. To expect him to do otherwise would be to expect a great deal.
We should be under no illusions about the people with whom we are dealing. A year ago they killed an elected representative. The year before that they killed a Member of this place. In the meantime they have killed other democratically elected representatives. They have shown over the past 15 years that they are prepared to kill anyone who stands in their way. A presiding officer may be confronted with what purports to be a prescribed document. It may be put before him by someone whom he knows to be a paramilitarist or an associate of one. The implied threat on presentation is, "Give me a ballot paper or you will get your desserts". Most presiding officers will hand over a ballot paper in those circumstances, and we cannot blame them for that. We cannot blame polling agents, whether SDLP or Unionist, if they are prepared to let that go by as well.
The practice that I have described is happening. I saw voters entering a local rural primary school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The teacher who was acting as presiding officer knew full well one of the persons who applied for a vote in a particular name. She knew that she was delivering to him someone else's ballot paper. That young woman was not prepared to risk saying anything. She handed over the ballot paper and that was all that she had to do as the law stands. I saw a Unionist polling agent refusing to issue a challenge in similar circumstances. He told me afterwards that he was scared stiff and that there was nothing that he could do.
Even by incorporating in the Bill the powers to allow polling agents to see cards, the system will not be 100 per cent. foolproof. However, if it does not eliminate the abuse it will certainly deter some from practising it. Not every Unionist or SDLP polling agent will be prepared to challenge, depending on who is offering the confrontation, but in many areas there will be those who are prepared to do so. If they are not prepared to go that far, they might at least be prepared to ask a question. A pointed question might just be enough to do what the Minister knows is the important thing, which is to trigger the attention of the police officer. The teeth that are offered in the Bill are police officers in polling stations. We are concerned about the mechanism that is required to excite their interest.
It is unreasonable to ask the presiding officer to present a challenge. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to ask the polling agents to do that. However, by showing concern about something that has been presented, an alert policeman would know that the presiding officer or polling agent had reservations. The policeman might intervene then, or wait until that person was leaving the polling station. He could demand proof of identity, and if that was not provided action could be taken. Even such a limited intervention could not occur if the buff bogus document was presented solely to the presiding officer who would have to exercise his discretion. Confronted by a gunman with murderers for accomplices, the presiding officer would act sensibly.

6 pm

Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the legislation is passed in its present form, because the medical card is so easy to forge and because many people will be applying for new medical cards, the presiding officer will be presented with fairly large numbers of documents that are new and look very much like proper documents, and will not be able to distinguish between the real and the bogus?

Mr. McCusker: We know, and I think that the Minister knows, that the medical card is the weakest prescribed document. It has little real validity in the whole exercise. It is the document most likely to be held by most people in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the terrorists will print innumerable medical cards with the intention of stealing votes. I do not believe that they will obtain, as has been suggested, a machine to produce identity cards, or that they will try to obtain numerous identity cards and alter them. Those activities would put them at risk and might leave them vulnerable to police action under clause 3. They do not need to do those things because they rely on their ability to enter a polling station and intimidate the staff, especially the presiding officer.
We are mainly talking about west Belfast, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid-Ulster and Foyle. In those communities the people know the IRA, its accomplices and those acting on their behalf. If a presiding officer is confronted with a piece of paper that resembles a medical card he will accept it. The terrorists may print one or two medical cards, but they do not really need to do that. Indeed, my medical card is in such a decrepit state that it would not require a great deal of effort to duplicate it.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the threat or implied threat to the presiding officer will be the weakest link. The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the role, if any, of the members of the security forces who might be standing near. Such a person would represent the only fear that the personator would experience at that stage. What does the hon. Gentleman see as the role under the Bill for the RUC men? Can they act independently? Are they asked to intervene only by the presiding officer, or can the agents attract their attention?

Mr. McCusker: My understanding—I am willing to be corrected—is that the RUC officer can act at any time if he is suspicious of what is happening. However, there will be some instances when he will need to be given some sign. If there were over-diligent policemen stopping many people who were not personating, there could be allegations of victimisation, harassment and so on. While the police will know some of those who are personating and can act independently, they will also need some assistance. It is asking too much of a presiding officer in Washine Bay and parts of west Belfast to say, "This is not a medical card; get out." To do that would be to push the person into the arms of the police, and it is obvious what will happen to the presiding officer if he does that. If Sinn Fein is prepared to terrorise and smash windows in the houses of the supporters of the SDLP—people such as Austin Currie — who are trying to take part in the democratic system, what will it do to a presiding officer who has caused the arrest of one of its people?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in such areas there are threats prior to election day? Strong-arm men visit homes and say, "You do not need to vote, give us your poll card." Could they not also say, "Give us your medical card"? It would be freely given to them.

Mr. McCusker: We are underestimating the character of our people, whether Unionist or nationalist. There is a degree to which our people will allow themselves to be pushed around by the paramilitary or politicians of all colours. However, there are limits when it comes to voting. They might, in many instances, be prepared to hand over a poll card. In sympathetic houses, there may be a willingness to produce a medical card. However, I do not think that 20,000 medical cards will be handed over. Indeed, I do not believe that everyone will be able to produce a medical card. The terrorist may demand one, but the person will tell him what he would tell the presiding officer, "I am sorry, I cannot find it." They will not be handed over on the scale envisaged by the promoters of the Bill.
I do not think that the terrorists will manufacture 20,000 identity cards. They would have to go through the register, weeks in advance, and identify the votes that they want to

steal. They would have to produce either medical cards or identity cards with the names of those whose votes were being stolen, alongside their photographs. The terrorists are not in that sort of business—they intend to steal votes through paramilitary threats.
The amendment seeks to widen the possibility of showing that matters might not be what they appear, so that the police constable is alerted. It might be simply by the raising of an eyebrow or by a Unionist making a gesture as he says, "Let me see that card. What is that card?" Such a gesture might alert a policeman without inciting the gunman that night to blow out the brains of the person who put the finger on him. The amendment would allow the polling agent to see the document, and that is essential if we are to gain anything from the exercise.
As I have said, 600,000 people will bear the burden of producing a prescribed document, even though that is wholly unnecessary. We must keep the matter in perspective. Those people are entitled to vote. They will go to a polling station where they will be well known by either the presiding officer, his clerk or any one of a range of three or four polling agents. I do not doubt for one minute that if the Unionist agent did not know the person, the SDLP agent would. If there was any dispute about identity, the polling agent could say, "He is who he claims to be."
The simple production of a poll card would end a great deal of the abuse. There is a danger that the Bill will devalue the poll card. I think that we should be considering ways to enhance it. I accept what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, but the suggestion is that poll cards can be accumulated under threat. The bulk of poll cards are not accumulated under threat, but are volunteered. They belong to the dead, those on holiday, the sick or those who are not interested in voting — a person may have moved home and his poll card may have arrived at his old home. Such a card may be thrown into the party organisation.
However, poll cards of people who are personated may never be in the hands of the party benefiting from the personation. Such cards are not always handed over, for example, by the relatives of the dead. Some people may refuse to hand over the poll card, yet despite that the vote is cast because it is not necessary to produce a poll card. Some thought should be given to the suggestion that the production of a poll card would be a useful means of establishing the right to vote. It is not conclusive. In County Antrim, in parts of County Down, County Armagh and Belfast the production of a poll card and another form of identification should be sufficient to convince a reasonable presiding officer of a person's right to vote.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy to obtain poll cards? His point is defeated because people from certain parties will follow a postman or go into an easily entered block of fiats and pick up a mass of poll cards and use them as proof of identification. Does he agree that such people are then more likely to be believed than if they had to produce a document with a photograph on it?

Mr. McCusker: I am emphasising the 500,000 people who are legitimately entitled to vote. We should seek to reduce obstacles to their exercising the franchise. As was said, they may be known personally. I seek to move towards the Minister's position of requiring specific


documents and of expecting some identification from a potential voter if there is a query. In many cases such a document may not be required because the voter is known, and his right to vote is not questioned.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the production of a poll card with a proper address would create the balance if the medical card did not show the present address, and that therefore the presiding officer's reasonable doubts would be swept away?

Mr. McCusker: That is what we are aiming for. I take my poll card with me anyway because it makes life easier for the presiding officer. The production of a poll card, which shows my name and proper address and, if the presiding officer insists, which I hope he would not, the production of a prescribed document, such as a medical card, would be a combination that would satisfy him. We seek to build in a means of verification for the hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters and something which will also help to eliminate the benign personation which takes place on the fringes. The production of the Bill itself virtually eliminates benign personation.
I assure the Minister that at every meeting of my constituency association I say that I do not need personated votes. I have a majority of 20,000, and I do not need any more votes, nor do I wish to incur any penalty. I tell them that, no matter how enthusiastic they are or how much they enjoy it, they must not do it — I will issue written instructions so that I do not fall foul of the any of the worst aspects of the Act when it comes into operation.
That brings us back to a person who has the potential to steal. He will be deterred by the prospect of arrest. Our approach and amendments may not be perfect, but I hope that the Minister will consider that the bulk of people wish to vote with least bother to themselves and the staff at the polling station. I hope that it is possible to have a deterrent against benign personation and to smooth the path of democracy for the majority in Northern Ireland. We must involve as many people as possible at the point of delivering the vote, so that more than one person will bear responsibility if the police must arrest a person. We must consider our amendment in that light.

Mr. Peter Archer: Like every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken during ahy of the debates on the Bill, I wholly support its principle and purpose. The stealing of votes is a pollutant that fouls the entire electoral process. If that principle and purpose were in dispute, I would not consider any moment spent in debate as other than well worth while. But all hon. Members agree on the principle. It is the method by which the purpose of the Bill is to be implemented which is in dispute.
The essential question, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) pointed out, is whether the presiding officer should have a wide discretion or a narrow one. That does not seem to constitute a vital issue of principle. It is a mistake to debate every issue as though it were part of the eternal cosmic struggle of good against evil. Then there is no margin for marking out the genuinely vital issues of principle.
There can be legitimate disagreement on the matter. It merits a debate and right hon. and hon. Members are

entitled to deploy their arguments. But I hope that the House will forgive me for suggesting that three full debates on the issue is one egg more than the pudding requires. Northern Ireland is denied its proper share of parliamentary time. We spend too few days on the problems which beset its people. We were reminded earlier today that some of our colleagues who, because they have pressing constituency problems, resent even the little time we spend on Northern Ireland. Also, as Mr. Speaker reminded us, Northern Ireland business is too rarely taken early in the day.
I cannot help reflecting on the Northern Ireland matters which we could have debated during these hours—for example, the tragedy of unemployment, the priorities for the budget that the Treasury allocates to the Northern Ireland Office, the balance between maintaining security and intruding into civil rights, the report of Sir George Baker, and the expectations which were dismissed so unceremoniously by the Prime Minister after the summit meeting. We may disagree about the subjects which we should like to discuss, but we can all find topics which merit greater attention than they receive. I hope that the House will understand the spirit in which I say that a full and long day's business after two previous debates on this issue may seem to the public to be a little disproportionate to the issue involved.
The issue is whether a presiding officer is to have general discretion to refuse a ballot paper when he smells a rat, whether he should make up his mind from the accumulation of evidence available to him through his eyes and ears, his memory, his sixth sense and what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) called his common sense—or whether his function should be confined to applying certain well-defined tests, and, according to their results, to act precisely as prescribed by the rules. I do not believe that the rules give rise to all the absurdities which have been postulated by hon. Members and to which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) alluded. If a presiding officer knows that a person is the elector whom that person purports to be, there is no reasonable doubt in the presiding officer's mind. At the risk of becoming tiresome, I repeat that, if there is no doubt in his mind, the document produced by the elector cannot have given rise to a doubt, and the condition spelt out in subsection 2(1)(b) is not satisfied.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose—

Mr. Archer: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that my next remarks will assist him. I suspect that the reverse position that was predicated by the right hon. Gentleman is not so satisfactory. If no doubt arises on the face of the document, it seems that the presiding officer cannot refuse a ballot paper whatever doubts he may entertain from other sources and for other reasons. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that

Mr. Powell: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support of the wording of amendment No. 25, which is that
the presiding officer decides, after taking into consideration any document produced to him, that there is no reasonable doubt that the voter is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.
If I have followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument correctly, he would appear completely to agree with that formula.

Mr. Archer: I was trying to say that perhaps the amendment is not required because it is already spelt out in the subsection. Perhaps I made a mistake in interrupting my argument to interpose a parenthesis, because I was saying that some of the problems which have been postulated during our debates do not arise in any event.

Mr. McCusker: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that I need not bring a prescribed document when I vote?

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman must bring a prescribed document, but whatever the content of that document, if he is known to the presiding officer—as he clearly is—the presiding officer does not entertain a doubt and, therefore, the document does not give rise to doubt.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) that the real sanction is the policeman at the door. If he is suspicious, he may arrest a claimant, which may be an effective way of ensuring that he does not vote. As the hon. Gentleman said, a policeman can act at any stage and on his own initiative; and I do not dissent from the argument that polling agents should have the right to intervene and to draw the attention of the police officer to suspicions which they might entertain. Perhaps I will embarrass the hon. Member for Upper Bann by agreeing so much with him, but I also agree that if the police became too enthusiastic and arrested many claimants who later transpired to be the electors whom they were claiming to be, the fat might be in the fire. Some might argue that the enthusiasm of the police had affected the result of the election.
Whatever solutions are offered in the Bill, there will be problems on one side or the other. The argument that I was seeking to propound is that the essential question is the extent of the discretion of the presiding officer. I believe that there are persuasive reasons for limiting it as the Bill seeks. If a presiding officer is given wide dicretion, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East pointed out, having been required to exercise his discretion, he may be accused of exercising it so as to favour a particular candidate or candidates. However objective or fair he tries to be, it is almost inevitable that such an allegation would be made. It follows that the more his discretion can be limited, the better. It could be said that the presiding officer was too ready to refuse ballot papers, at least to those with certain surnames, or that he was too gullible and handed ballot papers to all and sundry as though they grew on trees.
However, there is a more formidable objection, which was propounded by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, although he drew a slightly different conclusion from it. If the presiding officer has a wide discretion, some may try to persuade him to exercise it in a certain way. If he resists their suggestions, he may be in serious physical danger. The House should not lightly expose presiding officers to such duress. Is it not better to prescribe a clear criterion with inevitable consequences so that the threats to which the presiding officer may be subjected can hardly affect what happens? Of course, if the threats reach the stage of requiring the presiding officer to ignore any rules and to hand out ballot papers irrespective of the documents produced, the Bill can provide no safeguard. But, short of that, the narrower his discretion, the less subjected he will be to such threats.

Mr. McCusker: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that at the previous election presiding officers must have handed thousands of ballot papers to people in the certain knowledge that they were not the right people? If that happened at the previous election, what will be different at the next election if a person comes in with what purports to be a prescribed document? If the same presiding officer is there, why should he say, -I will not give you a ballot paper because that is a false document"? I do not believe that that will happen.

Mr. Archer: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is advancing a counsel of despair. If he says that we have reached the stage where no rules can affect the presiding officer, there is no point in legislating As I said, the best sanction will be the policeman on the door, I hope that we will not reach the stage of saying,, "Let us give up any attempt to legislate beyond that," because it is something to which the House must direct its mind.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Why have elections?

Mr. Archer: As my right hon. Friend says, if we reach that stage, why have elections at all?
I have listened to the debate with an open mind, and I believe that the discretion of the presiding officer should be limited in the way described in the Bill. I accept that the price that we must pay is that the rules will sometimes seem artificial. We shall deliberately limit the powers of presiding officers to act on evidence outside the documents even when common sense suggests otherwise. We shall restrict the range of questions which a presiding officer is permitted to ask. But I think that he should have power to ask for an explanation of apparent discrepancies in the documents. If someone is required to produce a document to the presiding officer, it would be odd if he were not permitted to ask why the address on the document did not tally with that on the register. I hope that the Government will consider that suggestion as the Bill progresses.
The Opposition support the Government's general approach to this matter. Unless I hear before the end of the debate more convincing arguments from those who moved the amendments, I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote with the Government, on the balance of the argument, with no great passion, and certainly without pretending that the debate is in any sense an Armageddon.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It might help the Committee if I were to say now that the Chairman has decided that amendments Nos. 3 and 24 will be called for Division if required.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It has already been said in this and previous debates that there is no difference of opinion among those representing Northern Ireland on the Government's goal. We all want elections to be run properly; we want the scourge of personation to be removed; and we want those who engineer and control personation to be subjected to the law. But if we are to have realistic legislation to achieve that goat, the Government should know that there are two ways in which it can be done. The first is to proscribe and outlaw organisations that practise personation, and the second is to have sufficient safeguards so that the arrangements for the identification of voters at polling stations are made as


watertight as possible. It does not seem to me that the action that the Government propose to take in the Bill will achieve its aims.
6.30 pm
At the beginning of the debate I understand that some strictures were cast upon me by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) because I was not present.

Mr. William Ross: No.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That was my understanding, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if it is not so. I made it clear to the Leader of the Unionist party that a colleague and I had to meet the Secretary of State at 5 o'clock. I had expected this debate to start sooner than it did. I was in the House for a long time before it began and in fact I contributed to the discussion that preceded it.

Mr. William Ross: The only strictures that I directed were at the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) who, as the hon. Gentleman can see, is not present even though he said in the House recently that he and his party had suffered severely from the abuse that the Bill is aimed to correct.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am glad that I have not been mixed up with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), because his political views and mine are not exactly in agreement.
I must also tell the Minister that I am not convinced that 20,000 votes were personated at the last election. If they were, I wonder where they came from, because they must have come from people who were never registered at all. I invite the Minister to consider the balance in the areas where votes are likely to be personated—Belfast, West, the Foyle, Mid-Ulster and perhaps Fermanagh and South Tyrone, It could not possibly be done.
I have had some experience both as an election agent for the Official Unionist party and as a candidate for my own party. The idea that it is possible to turn out in the morning, run thousands of people through the polls and personate them is ridiculous. It cannot be done. There are limits to it—[Interruption.] I make that statement about the numbers which can be put through the polling stations, but in the council elections in May, where there can be close-run decisions, it is very important that no votes are stolen. We had an election for the city council in west Belfast, and only a handful of votes decided it. For that reason it is very important that we deal with this abuse, and I support the Bill's objective.
In my view, the presiding officer needs to have a great deal of discretion. He is the man who will sit there and take the decisions. He is a trusted official, a man of some substance and standing in the community and he is not there not to exercise his common sense, knowledge and discretion. He is entitled to use his common sense and discretion. If he knows a person and can swear that he is whom he purports to be, why must he have a prescribed document produced to him and, if the document bears an inaccurate statement, why must he act on that information alone?
It is only right that, as amendment No. 25 says, the presiding officer should have the opportunity to use his intelligence and say that the would-be voter is the person whom he purports to be and that even though his medical

card bears the wrong address, it does not matter because people change their addresses, and that he should be entitled to his vote.
I am still extremely worried about the honourable and decent people on both sides of the religious and political divide who want to vote and who come out to vote. It is often said that everyone in Northern Ireland thinks that voting is great and will all come out to vote, but I can tell right hon. and hon. Members that it is difficult to get people out to vote in Northern Ireland, especially as the ballot box in large measure has been debased by the House because no longer do majorities count in the internal politics of Northern Ireland. Many people ask what is the use of voting.
Those who believe in the democratic process and its continuance must be encouraged to vote. When they come to polling stations every safeguard must be provided for them so that they can get in their legitimate votes at the same time as every safeguard is provided to keep illegitimate voters out. We need balance in the Bill in that respect, and I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to that.
The two parts of Antrim do not vote in large percentages. It is difficult to get people out to vote. If a decent law-abiding citizen comes to vote and either he has not the necessary document or there is some query on the one that he produces, he will be challenged. Although the presiding officer knows him and perhaps even taught him at school, he must say, "I am sorry. You cannot vote." If that happens that person will not go back. He will never vote again in Northern Ireland. He will say to himself, "What is the use? I am sick, sore and tired. I have been denied my vote."
There will be some fun in polling stations between presiding officers and those who will be really sore about this provision. The Minister needs to apply his mind to what is likely to happen on polling day when a presiding officer says to a would-be voter, "I know you and was brought up with you, but you haven't the required document," or, "The document that you have produced gives me cause for doubt because your proper address does not appear on it."
These amendments are simply saying loudly to the Minister that the presiding officer should be allowed to use his intelligence and make sure that he is satisfied. If he is satisfied about anyone's identity, that person should be allowed to vote.

Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman also considered the possibility that the application of this law, by lowering the percentage of decent people who have always voted but not really reducing the Sinn Fein vote all that much, means that the Sinn Fein vote will appear as a larger percentage of the total votes cast than it has in the past?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the Bill could be self-defeating. Insted of accomplishing what we are setting out to do, the result could be entirely different. We could end up with a bigger percentage of Sinn Fein voters. People who wish to vote Sinn Fein are entitled to, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about people who are stealing votes and personating people who are enemies of the Sinn Fein movement. I want the Minister to tell the House what


safeguards he can provide in his Bill which will defend the legitimate voter as well as dealing with the illegitimate one.
There is also a problem about where the police come into this. I wonder what use a representative of the candidate is under the Bill. What does he do? He can no longer sit at the table. If he does, he will see the documents that are produced. Where is he to be put? What is he to see? What is the use of swearing him in and having him there? I understand that the purpose of having him there is that he can see that the person who goes to vote is a legitimate voter, that his name is on the roll, and that he is the person whom he purports to be. He is there to safeguard against personation. Under the present law he is one of the people who are present to safeguard what we are trying to safeguard even more. Is it intended to take away his role? His role should be that which has been suggested. He, too, should be able to see any document that is produced and be satisfied, and he should be able to see how the presiding officer comes to his decision. The Minister needs to apply himself to that.
What role does the Minister see the representative of the candidate playing? Does he see him playing any role? In the past, the representatives of the candidates have been able to check personation, and they have been able to challenge people. If they do not do that, it is because of fear. A Unionist can challenge a Republican, or a Republican can challenge a Unionist, and that still goes on. However, an SDLP representative will be afraid to challenge a Sinn Fein supporter because he knows that there will be a reaction, retaliation and punishment. The Minister needs to tell us why the agent should not have the opportunity of getting the law in the polling station, as represented by the RUC, to support him, as the police need to be involved at that stage. The responsibility of the presiding officer and of the people around the table depends on the police officer.
I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that the RUC is not enthusiastic to stop people on polling day. It does as little as possible on polling day to interfere. I have found arguments carried on about who got their caravans first before a polling station, and the RUC has left it to be fought out among the arguers. I cannot see the RUC arresting hundreds of people in the polling station. I have not heard a loud outcry against it, even in Republican areas, on election day. The RUC has acted responsibly, so it should have the opportunity to exercise its authority. That is why my hon. Friend and I shall be voting for these amendments.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I support much of what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. The object behind the Bill is commendable, and one that everyone would support. Personation should be curtailed and done away with, not because of the things that have happened in certain areas or because of a certain party but because of the democratic principle that a person's vote should be his vote and it should not be used by someone else. It is unfortunate that many things have been said outside the House on the lines that it is fear of the Sinn Fein party and its fellow travellers that has led to the Bill. It is a terrible thing if a Bill has to be brought in because of murderers and those who travel down the same road, and the so-called political party.
In our anxiety to ensure that right is done — the democratic right of every voter to have his or her vote

—we must not forget the right also of those who have never personated and who wish to vote in a democratic way, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. In those areas of Northern Ireland where we do not have the same trouble — as has been said, in some constituencies no extra signed votes have been required — we may be disadvantaging some people. Older people and others will resent the fact that they have to provide identification to get what they regard as their God-given right to vote. There will be those who, if there are any difficulties, will refuse to vote in future, and will storm out of the polling stations after creating rows and trouble. Who can blame them for that, especially as the rest of the United Kingdom is treated in a different manner? In certain constituencies it is already difficult enough to get the voters out to vote without putting any further obstacles in their way.
6.45 pm
I draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to what will happen if and when the Bill is introduced, and if it is not introduced properly with the required safeguards. What will happen when the next election is over and there is no difference in the voting pattern? It has been said in this debate, and by the Minister on other occasions, that a party is the cause of bringing in the Bill. If that party still maintains its position in the voting pattern because of discrepancies in the Bill which allow personation to continue because it has not been brought in properly, that party will be able to say, quite legitimately, "You see, you were all wrong. We did not have personated votes. This is the actual support that we have in Northern Ireland." The end will be worse than the beginning. That is the terrible danger of the Bill if the Minister and the Government do not bring in proper safeguards so that we do not have such difficulties.
When the Minister last spoke, he did not answer my point about the case of the chap who is working but has none of the prescribed documents. He does not drive so he does not have a driving licence. He does not have a passport and he does not need a current book for allowances or pensions. He does not have his medical card or he has lost it, or perhaps it shows the wrong address. How will that person obtain his vote?

Rev. Ian Paisley: He should get his marriage lines.

Mr. Forsythe: In those circumstances, there is something to be said for the polling card, because at least most people receive it. Therefore, there may be some support for such a proposal. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how that person will obtain his vote.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I support amendment No. 25 and the others grouped with it. Two substantial matters are contained in that group and have to be faced by the Government. It is not enough for the Government to turn their back on responsible and reasoned arguments and chase through the Lobby their ranks of supporters to ensure that the Bill proceeds without amendment. The Minister may not want to accept the drafting of these amendments, although I have no objection. They are better than some of the amendments tabled in my name. In any case the Minister will have to introduce the two substantial principles contained in these amendments at a later stage.
I ask the Minister to address himself particularly to two matters. The first is the principle contained in amendment No. 25, which deals with the sensible argument of


allowing some back-up material. The Bill, as worded, requires the presiding officer to do no more than accept, on the basis of the document in front of him, that the person presenting the document is the person on the electoral register. The presiding officer may have some doubts because the person's features on the photograph differ or because the address has changed over the years. It would seem to be a simple, common-sense measure to provide that the person about to vote should produce any evidence he can, whether in the form of a House of Commons pass, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) was prepared to do, a Civil Service pass or any other documentation. The Committee would be happy if the Under-Secretary of State were prepared to concede that the principles in the Bill are not prejudiced by allowing the presiding officer to have that degree of flexibility in accepting certain back-up material from the voter.
I am greatly concerned about the position to which personation agents have been relegated. Until now at elections in Northern Ireland, the personation agents were, to all intents and purposes, the only guard against personation. The Under-Secretary of State may argue that the Committee would not be debating this Bill today if the personation agents had done their job. I would argue that hon. Members would have debated this legislation a long time ago if those agents had not been doing their job. Their presence, apart from any action they take, deters many who seek to personate. I suspect that the people whom the parties choose to be personation agents have local knowledge and expertise that outweighs that of the presiding officer, his clerks or officials.
The Under-Secretary of State has not yet overtly stated the Government's intention towards personation agents. He has said that they will not be allowed to look over the shoulders of the presiding officer to see how much Mrs. Jones is getting in supplementary benefit, to find out about Mr. Murphy in a prescribed Republic of Ireland or United Kingdom passport or to see whether a person's Great Britain driving licence has endorsements. I can understand the Government's sensitivity in not wanting those documents to be seen easily. If there is some doubt in the mind of the personation agent about the identity of the person on the electoral register, it is reasonable that he should have the right to question that person. That may not be necessary in every case. That is a reasonable request, and I hope that the Government will accept the tenor of that argument.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will address his attention to the RUC's role. The personation agent will have only half the evidence, because he will see the person going into the polling station and will not be able to check his documents. Can the personation agent ask the RUC to intervene to check a voter's credentials? Will only the presiding officer be allowed that right? The Under-Secretary of State should inform the Committee about those matters so that we can have a more informed debate. I trust that he will accept the general tenor and validity of those arguments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have rightly had a long debate, because this group of amendments, is central to the Government's approach to the Bill. No doubt, when discussing other amendments, we shall hear

more about a number of the points raised during the discussion, particularly the RUC's role. That is the time at which I should wish to deal with those points.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the general support he has given to our approach on this front. Like him, I am anxious to make as rapid progress as possible, but I do not think that we should be disappointed that we have engaged in discussion in some depth on this first group of amendments.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) explained clearly and fairly the effects of his amendments. There is no difference between us about the effects if the amendments are carried. We recognise the sincerity and care that has been taken. We are at one in trying to deal with the evil which the Bill is designed to tackle.
Despite that, the Government have thought hard about the approach taken by the right hon. Member for South Down in these amendments and, in general, have come to a different judgment about their desirability. The amendments would alter the basis on which the Government have founded the Bill to deal with personation—the principle of universality of application of the requirement to produce documents to obtain a ballot paper. These amendments would remove the mandatory requirement upon all those voting at polling stations to produce one of those listed documents to obtain a ballot paper.
In a sense, nothing in these provisions would be very different from the electoral procedures that apply now, except that new circumstances would be created by amendment No. 26. According to that amendment the presiding officer at his discretion might, or, if required by a candidate, his election agent or polling agent, must, require a voter to produce a prescribed document. The presiding officer could then take that document into account together with any other document in deciding whether the voter was the person on the electoral register he was presenting himself to be.
It is clear that the effect of amendment No. 24 would be to confer upon party political representatives or appointees the same powers of access to personal documents enjoyed by presiding officers. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary, since I see no reason to usurp the powers of electoral staff in this matter. Nor do I think—I have given this careful thought—that it would be desirable to intrude on individual privacy without good reason. I imagine that many voters would resent in principle having a personal document scrutinised by representatives of various political parties. In the special context and circumstances of Northern Ireland, some electors might feel apprehensive about disclosing certain personal details, such as benefits or allowances, to members of a political party which they view unsympathetically or which they believe would regard them unsympathetically.

Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if a polling agent has good cause to think that the document produced was false or bogus or was not a document that belonged to the individual involved, he cannot interject in any way to obtain an assurance that it is a prescribed document?

Mr. Scott: A personation agent can still challenge. He cannot ask to see the document. By issuing his challenge,


he alerts the constable of the RUC who is present. That right to challenge has not changed because of the Bill. I hope that the personation officers' role has been reinforced by the Bill's provisions. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not believe that it would be right to give personation officers the right to inspect documents. They can alert people and then the presiding officer has to make the judgment.
The effect of these amendments would be to create a new climate of uncertainty among the Northern Ireland electorate. Far from stopping the fouling of the process —that was the phrase used by the right hon. Member for South Down—they would create a new uncertainty. The electorate would not be sure whether they would be required to produce prescribed documents at a polling station before they were issued with a ballot paper or sure about what other evidence they might be expected to produce to support that evidence.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister be good enough to deal with the matter that he raised tangentially just now when referring to the access of polling agents to a document? What is the interpretation that is placed upon the word "produce"? Do I "produce" a document if I hold it out so that the face of it can be seen by the person to whom I am producing, or is it not produced unless I hand it over so that he can go through it and turn it upside down? That is material to the point the Minister was making about the benefit of a document and this might be a useful moment to clarify it.

7 pm

Mr. Scott: It has to be produced to the presiding officer in such a way that enables him to inspect the document. The presiding officer will form his own judgment as to whether looking at the face of the document is sufficient evidence. In the case of a passport, he will presumably want to open the document to inspect the page that contains the photograph. It will depend upon the judgment of the presiding officer whether he is in a position satisfactorily to inspect the document produced to him.
If the amendments were accepted, electors could not be certain whether they would be issued with a ballot paper, whatever document they produced, as the decision would depend on the presiding officer's discretion. I believe that this is a formula for confusion among the electorate and could be applied inconsistently by presiding officers in different parts of the Province. Some hon. Members may feel that the provisions might invite and encourage vexatious challenges by polling agents or those who might have a vested interest in disrupting the electoral proceedings. They significantly increase the risk of allegations of acts of partiality by presiding officers and of consequent litigation. They provide a great temptation for those determined to undermine the democratic process to secure partiality in their favour.
I have no doubt that if the amendments were accepted they would create a greater deterrent for the legitimate voter than the Government's proposals, and would thus increase the possibility, which has been mentioned in earlier debates, of producing a lower turnout.
In contrast, I maintain that the Government's proposals in clause 1 reduce to the minimum the discretion which is to be exercised by electoral staff so that the electoral procedure will be conducted consistently in every polling station across the Province. All voters in all polling

stations will be required to produce one of the prescribed documents to obtain a ballot paper. All presiding officers and all clerks will, in those circumstances, be required to deliver a ballot paper unless they decide that the document raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the voter is the person on the register whom he claims to be.
I reinforce the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I made the same point on Second Reading. If the presiding officer or the clerk knows a person to be the person whom he represents himself to be, no document can then raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the presiding officer or clerk as to identity of that person.
If we take into account the provisions of clause 3 with those of clause 1 — there is a mandatory requirement upon a voter to produce a prescribed document to obtain a ballot paper — all personators and would-be personators know that they risk arrest for the offence of going equipped to personate. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) mentioned that point. If a personator or would-be personator now goes into a polling station, he runs the risk that the presiding officer may decline to give him a vote; the presiding officer may ask the statutory questions; the personation agent may challenge him; and the police, if alerted by the presiding officer or by the personation agent, or on their own initiative, can move in to effect an arrest under the provisions of clause 3. That will be a substantial deterrent to those who would engage in personation.
I am advised that presiding officers are moved around wherever possible into polling stations where they are not well known to local electors so as to provide a form of protection against intimidation from the local paramilitaries.

Mr. McCusker: I do not know about the last point; it is something that the Minister can investigate. The Minister spoke about the necessity for consistency of treatment. I am sure that the Minister will accept that hundreds of thousands of voters in Northern Ireland who go to the polls are just like voters in his constituency. How does he feel his electorate would react—I am talking about the ordinary run-of-the-mill elector—if to vote for the hon. Gentleman they were asked to produce one of the documents?

Mr. Scott: I was corning to that point. I well understand the burden that this places upon the vast majority of legitimate voters. We considered this matter seriously. The Government Listened to the representations made to them by all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. We made our own assessment of the growing threat of personation, in particular vote-stealing as it has been described, which subverts the whole democratic process, and came to the view and hold it firmly that that is a price that we must ask the vast majority to pay to eliminate this poison from the electoral system in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was interested in the aside that the Minister made when he said that presiding officers are moved around. Will the Minister study that point and find out how many have been moved around? I know that no one has been moved in my area. They have presided there for a long time. I have experience of what might be called the "dicey" areas. During the EEC elections, my agent


said the same thing. He introduced me to the presiding officer and said, "This man has been doing this for 20 years in this area."

Mr. Scott: They have been moved around in the past, and, with the new arrangements provided for my the Bill, I am sure that those who arrange the appointment of presiding officers will bear in mind the position of those who come forward to offer their services in that role.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Surely the presiding officer is of great benefit to the community when he recognises those who come forward to vote. If he is placed in an entirely different community, the voters are all strangers to him and he may recognise no one. Any documentation could then apply to anyone presenting it.

Mr. Scott: Presiding officers' discretion, under the terms of the Bill, will be limited. The personation agents will still be there and will still have the right to challenge. The RUC will be there. I think that that will be a balance. I am sure that in making his dispositions the chief electoral officer will take those matters into account.
I am conscious of the care that has gone into devising these amendments, and I am aware of the anxieties felt by the right hon. Members for South Down (Mr. Powell) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) which gave rise to the amendments. I must reiterate that they contain a high potential for confusion and disruption of polling stations and do not provide the formidable deterrent against the personation which clauses 1 and 3 taken together provide as they stand. Those provisions are certain and fair, and they will apply universally across the Province. I therefore must urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) seemed to bemoan the fact that we were devoting prime time in the House of Commons to discussing this constitutional measure. I do not deny that there are other matters that we might profitably discuss, but because this is a constitutional measure it is right and proper that it should be taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. I am sure that, on behalf of the official Opposition, he would not seek to deny that.

Mr. Archer: I wish to make the position clear. I am not complaining that this is being taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. I was only venturing to question whether an issue which has been debated twice already should occupy so much of the time which is so happily available to us today.

Mr. Molyneaux: I suppose that if it had been left to the initiative of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we could have chosen to devote time to certain other matters, but we know that the pressure for this measure came not from our party or even from the Democratic Unionist party but from the party represented by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is not here in the flesh. The initiative for the pressure came from what in Northern Ireland is called constitutional nationalism, because it was thought that the hon. Member's party was incapable of holding its own against Sinn Fein. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—who at the moment is engaged in his studies beside me—I too regret that the hon. Member for Foyle is not with us, not just because

his views would have been of great benefit to the Committee but because, after all, his party is likely to be the main beneficiary of the Bill.
The nationalist spokesmen in recent days, both lay and ordained, have been telling the world that they are alienated because they are excluded from the decision-making processes in the parliamentary system. The opportunity exists here today. We shall do our best in the absence of the two hon. Members elected to represent the minority in this House—the one who will not come and the other who will not stay.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) opened by recording that we had diligently sought to improve this portion of the Bill. In fairness to the Minister, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and their Department, I place on record the fact that they too have sought some way of meeting our wishes with a view to making this a more effective piece of legislation. So far the Government have not felt able to move sufficiently far in our direction, but we are travelling hopefully. I hope that before we come to the end of the deliberations, the gulf will be less wide and less deep.
It will come as no surprise to the Committee to know that we on this Bench, who have consistently adhered to the line that we took in 1982, before the Bill was drafted, maintain that position. My right hon. Friend has quoted from my letter to the Secretary of State dated 6 July 1982, in which we advocated less rigid requirements on the matter that we are discussing in the amendments. With long experience of the conduct of elections, we instinctively felt that there was a need to tighten the procedures and to make certain restrictions more effective, but we did not feel that there was any need for a fundamental change in the rules and procedures governing elections in any part of the United Kingdom.
For the whole of the period since the former Secretary of State first wrote to me in April 1982 we too have engaged in consultations, and we have found that there was a remarkable consensus on the desirability of candidates' polling agents taking a more robust part in the proceedings. The Representation of the People Acts, which govern all elections that really matter in the United Kingdom, provide for that participation. I believe that polling agents will be much less effective under the proposed arrangements. To be effective, they have to be given whatever information is available, and I cannot understand the justification for refusing to give polling agents such information.
Has it been entirely overlooked that all polling agents make a solemn declaration of secrecy, in the presence of a justice of the peace, before they can be admitted to the polling station to take up their duties? I have to ask how many examples there are of occasions when that declaration of secrecy has been dishonoured or breached in any way.
The Minister, in the light of what he has just said about the undesirability of disclosing personal documents to polling agents, will know that it has been the custom and practice of presiding officers in polling stations to make known what information is at their disposal by way of calling out to the party representatives the name and the number of the elector approaching the table to ask for his ballot paper.
It has to be understood that in polling stations there is far more co-operation and team work than parliamentary


draftsmen would imagine. By making the regulations too rigid. I fear that we shall destroy the teamwork which has up to now made the machine work.
7.15 pm
I have seen cases where there has been confusion over duplication of names — the same name has been duplicated on two different pages. The presiding officer, not being certain who is standing before him, will on many occasions seek the advice of the appropriate party agents, and all of them together, to the complete satisfaction of the elector, will come to the conclusion that he or she is the person whose name appears on the register as so-and-so.
There has been objection to the bringing in of polling agents on the ground that they would be intimidated, but by narrowing the field surely we achieve the reverse effect, concentrating the fire entirely on the unfortunate presiding officer, because he is the only one who will make decisions. Good soldiers are always taught that fire is ineffective if it is scattered over a range of targets. There is much to be said for widening the field and thereby sharing the risk over a range of people who would voluntarily take that risk.
I think that the former Secretary of State would agree with what I have just said, because he made it clear in his letter to me that he accepted the view that the co-ordinated effort should make "a substantial difference". That was coordination among all those present in the polling station.

Rev. Martin Smyth: As I understand the position, the Government's view is that polling agents should not be able to see the documents. My right hon. Friend has been talking about co-operation. Is he aware that there is a tendency for some presiding officers not even to call out the name and the number, so that it is more difficult for polling agents to do their job? Is that the pattern that my right hon. Friend believes the Government are now inculcating through the returning officers in the various constituencies?

Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that the Government are not engaging and are not likely to engage in any such exercise. My hon. Friend will remember that on Second Reading I said that there was a certain patchiness in the practices observed, and that some of it stemmed from the fact that elections in Northern Ireland are split between the Representation of the People Acts under which we get ourselves elected to this place for our sins, and the Stormont electoral law.
I suspect that the chief electoral officer and his various subordinates seek refuge in the passages of whichever Act seems to be of most benefit to them at any given time. I would deplore any tendency on the part of the chief electoral officer or presiding officer or deputy returning officer to limit in any way the participation of the polling agents who, as I have illustrated, have been of real help in making the machinery work in times past. That is borne out by the fact that there is very seldom any friction within the polling stations.
On occasions I have visited polling stations after having been warned by security officers not to go there. On arrival, I have proceeded to shake hands with everyone at the table, as I imagine you do in your constituency, Mr. Dean. The Sinn Fein representatives invariably stood and courteously shook hands. It was the members of the moderate Alliance party who put their hands under the table and refused to shake hands.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has the right hon. Gentleman carefully considered the role of the electoral registration officer in regard to the electoral roll? One of the most important steps is to check the accuracy of the electoral roll with and in conjunction with the polling officers. Surely that helps to overcome some of the problems that the right hon. Gentleman is highlighting.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is tempted down that road, he will recognise that that question seems to be a little far from the amendment.

Mr. Molyneaux: In fairness, I do not think that I did the leading on this occasion, but I shall refrain from answering the question by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) in the expectation that the hon. Gentleman will be able to find a way of raising it when we debate another amendment.
I was going to say that over the past few years the participation of polling agents had admittedly lessened to some extent in certain areas, but only in certain areas. Although I appreciate the validity of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for. Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), that was not entirely due to overt intimidation in the sense of violence, but was far more attributable to a collapse of morale on the part of what might be termed establishment parties or perhaps one party on the nationalist side. There is a good deal of validity in what my hon. Friend said, but that latter consideration was probably the more significant.
However, that does not in any way relieve members of political parties of their responsibility to fight their own battles and stand on their own feet. If our amendments were accepted, that would go a long way towards achieving and encouraging that. However, those people will stand on their own feet only if morale is high, and that can be achieved only if parties have the drive, initiative and confidence in their own existence without outside assistance or any form of life support system.
Earlier I paid tribute to the Minister and his officials for doing their best to improve this part of the Bill, but for us the difficulty is—I think that the Minister appreciates it —that they have not succeeded. Consequently, not only has there been no reduction in our fears about the inadequacy of the Bill as it stands, but we have greater fears that the measure may result in confusion and chaos at polling stations.
Regrettably, in view of the gap that continues to exist between the Government and ourselves, I have no option but to press the amendment and invite the Committee to support it in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 180.

Division No. 25]
[7.22 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Parry, Robert


Clay, Robert
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Loyden, Edward
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McCusker, Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Maginnis, Ken
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Maynard, Miss Joan



Michie, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. A. Cecil Walker and


Nellist, David
Mr. William Ross.


Nicholson, J.







NOES


Amess, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Ancram, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hickmet, Richard


Ashby, David
Hicks, Robert


Ashdown, Paddy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Holt, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Home Robertson, John


Bellingham, Henry
Hooson, Tom


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Blackburn, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howells, Geraint


Bottomley, Peter
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hume, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunter, Andrew


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brinton, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bruce, Malcolm
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bruinvels, Peter
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Chapman, Sydney
Knowles, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lang, Ian


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Latham, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lester, Jim


Conway, Derek
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon
Lyell, Nicholas


Cope, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Couchman, James
McQuarrie, Albert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mates, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Mather, Carol


Dewar, Donald
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dover, Den
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Murphy, Christopher


Durant, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Newton, Tony


Evennett, David
Normanton, Tom


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Faulds, Andrew
Parris, Matthew


Favell, Anthony
Pawsey, James


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fletcher, Alexander
Penhaligon, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pollock, Alexander


Forth, Eric
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Fox, Marcus
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Franks, Cecil
Roe, Mrs Marion


Freeman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Galley, Roy
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gow, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gregory, Conal
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Silvester, Fred


Gummer, John Selwyn
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hanley, Jeremy
Spence, John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Spencer, Derek


Harris, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harvey, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Steen, Anthony


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Stern, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hayes, J.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Haynes, Frank
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hayward, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.





Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Warren, Kenneth


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watts, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitfield, John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, David
Woodcock, Michael


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. John Major and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 14, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.

No. 15, in page 2, line 7, leave out `a' and insert 'the'.
No. 16, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.
No. 22, in page 2, line 16, at end insert

'No document shall be required to be produced for voting purposes other than a document issued by or with the authority of the United Kingdom Government.'.
No. 17, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'(I.F.) References in this rule to producing the prescribed document are to producing the document issued by the Chief Electoral Officer which shall bear the name, address, date of birth, signature and photograph of the registered elector.'.

Mr. Robinson: These amendments have properly been linked. Only amendment No. 22 stands on its own feet, as it were, and I shall deal with that separately.
Our purpose is clear. Substituting the definite article for the indefinite article has the effect of requiring just one document to be produced of the type prescribed in amendment No. 17 for issue by the chief electoral officer.
In debates on the Bill so far I have not been impressed by any evidence of willingness on the part of the Government to accept reasonable amendments. The Government bulldozer was put into top gear to reject an earlier, thoroughly rational amendment. That suggests that, however convincing the argument, the Government have no intention of accepting any amendments, that they wish the Bill to go forward exactly as it was presented to us some weeks ago and that the rest of us can like it or lump it. I became slightly optimistic on the basis that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) must know something that I did not, because he said that he was travelling hopefully. I think that hope is about all that we can have, however, as there is little evidence to suggest that our hopes are likely to be realised in the form of changes in the Bill.
The purpose of the amendments is to have a uniform identification card produced by the chief electoral officer. That would remove much of the confusion which, as earlier debates have shown, will arise on election day if the forms of identification suggested by the Government in the notes on clauses are used.
The drafting of the amendments may not be of the neatest. A cursory glance suggests that amendments Nos. 14 and 16 should have referred to leaving out the second "a" and inserting "the". Nevertheless, the intention is clear and if the Government shock or rock me by accepting the principle I am sure that the draftsmen can make appropriate changes to tidy up the drafting.
The weaknesses of the prescribed documents suggested by the Government are clear. I could speak at length on each of the documents suggested but there is little point in rehearsing arguments that have been made several times already.
A passport bears no address, is not available to everyone and does not allow the presiding officer to check whether the person on the electoral register is indeed the person standing before him. It merely allows him to check that the person before him is the person who rightly owns the passport. As no address is given, the person holding the passport might live at any one of 100 or 150 addresses in Northern Ireland. The person on the register is thus not sufficiently clearly identified.
A driving licence is also not available to everyone and a Great Britain driving licence carries no photograph. Of all the documents suggested by the Government, a Northern Ireland driving licence is perhaps the best, except that it is not readily available to many voters.
The least said about medical cards, the better. As has been pointed out, it is the document least capable of fulfilling the task assigned to it by the Government. There is no photograph on the card, and the address on it is hardly likely to be the address where the elector currently lives. In many cases only the initials may be given, or the name may differ from that in the electoral register. The medical card therefore presents a number of problems, apart from the fact that many of us may not be able to find our card.
I shall leave aside the arguments about the abuse of benefits and the availability of benefit payment books to people who are not entitled to them, and say only that the document does not cany a photograph and that not everyone has such a book.
All those documents have weaknesses, and I suggest to the Government that the arguments for consistency and uniformity are so great that there is no sound reason why the Government should not introduce a document to serve the purpose of an election. The document that we suggest would contain a photograph and would therefore immediately identify the holder with the person standing in front of the presiding officer. It would state the name and address, so the presiding officer could check it against the electoral register.
We suggest two additional features which would extend the information available to presiding officers: a signature, and the date of birth. Those two features can appear on the form submitted by every family to the chief electoral officer when he compiles the register of electors. I understand that in the United States it is possible to have the date of birth and a signature on some forms. It would be very easy for the presiding officer to check a signature. Signatures are much more difficult to forge than any other piece of identification.
Thus far, the Government have given only two hints about why they would not be prepared to introduce a purpose-made identification card. First, the Minister suggested in a by-the-way fashion that it would be costly. He also suggested that some people might not be prepared to present themselves to have an identification card made. Who might those people be? I suspect that they would be the very people who try to have one vote more than they are entitled to, and whom the Minister is attempting to frustrate.
Other people might not wish to apply for an identification card because the police were hunting for them, and because if they presented themselves so that a

card could be issued they might find members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary preventing them from leaving the premises. It is well known that people on the run in Northern Ireland still manage to vote. I suspect that such people would not be keen to present themselves lest they should run into the arms of the law.
Given all the evidence available, there is no sound reason why, if the Government intend to make personation more difficult, they should not take the ultimate step of having a purpose-made identification card. On Second Reading and so far in Committee—admittedly we have not dwelt specifically on the subject—the Government have not given any good reason why there should not be such a card. Given the situation in Northern Ireland, I urge the Committee to consider the amendment. If the Government are right in saying that there is a rate of personation of 20 per cent., they will want to make it more difficult, and it has already been made clear to the Government that there are grave weaknesses in the documents that they suggest should be used.
At the back of the Government's mind may be the thought that the identification card might be used for some other purposes. I am not sensitive about that. I would not argue against the card being used for other purposes. If the Government are concerned about the expense, the fact that the card was of value for security purposes might help to offset the expense very quickly. I urge hon. Members to vote for the amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My right hon. and hon. Friends are in sympathy with the arguments which led the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to propose the amendment. If we vote on the amendment, we shall support him. However, the amendments highlight the difficulties that the Government have created for themselves by the principle of universality. On amendment No. 9, we shall consider the range and identity of the prescribed documents. They all have two things in common. None of them proves what it is required to prove, and of none of them can it be said that every citizen needs to possess it. It is therefore both unreasonable and oppressive to require of every citizen that, as a condition of casting his vote, he should present one or more of those documents.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have gone: to the logical point of saying that we should have a document which is as probative as it can possibly be made—they have not suggested a thumb print, but I cannot think of anything else that they have omitted — and that the document should be dished out to everyone on the electoral roll, under the auspices of the chief electoral officer. They say that, if a document is to be required from everyone, this is the form that the document should take.
The hon. Gentleman's reasoning is impeccable, but we should not blind ourselves to the fact that in practice the arrangement might prove difficult and disadvantageous. The chief electoral officer is under an obligation to issue a polling card to every person whose name appears on the electoral register, but I do not know what proportion of the polling cards arrive at their proper destination—and I am not thinking of malpractice.
I have it in mind that one of the purposes of political organisation and electoral organisation is to ensure that one's supporters get a reminder to vote and information about where to vote—even if they have not received a


polling card. The polling card is liable to miscarry and, if the person concerned has moved, it is extremely unlikely to be sent after him. I am therefore afraid that this document — ideal though it may be for purposes of identification—could not be assumed to be in the hands of every elector on polling day.
Those comments do not refute the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I am simply entering a caveat that ought to be entered in case we might be supposed to have discovered the philosopher's stone in search of which the Government have set us off by their demand for universality.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have considered that point carefully. However, we were thinking of the document being issued when the person was photographed, in the same way as a pass is issued in this House. After one is photographed, one is given the pass.

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that if all the electors were summoned for the purpose of being thus identified, that would deal with the danger that the document would not be conveyed to the person who should receive it. However, I am afraid that the procedure would place large obstacles in the way of electors who wished to vote, especially if the election occurred within a relatively short time of the electoral list coming into force.

Mr. McCusker: Would not that mean that the person would have to present himself for a photograph during the qualifying period or immediately after it?

Mr. Powell: The difficulties which are thrown up by the amendment prove the impracticability of fairly attempting a universal demand for a prescribed document. By treading the labyrinth of trying to get the documents produced and into the hands of every legitimate elector, we are exploring once again the ground that we covered when we discussed previous amendments and in earlier stages of the Bill—the consequences of making the right to a ballot paper depend on the production of a document and making that production a universal requirement for all electors. I simply do not think that it will be possible to do that. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have just registered in the Lobby our belief to that effect and we shall have no objection to re-registering it when this matter goes to a vote.
I do not know whether it was inadvertently that the hon. Member for Belfast, East did not refer to amendment No. 22 or whether you, Mr. Dean, have decided that it should be debated separately.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I announced that amendment No. 22 was debatable with the other amendments in this group.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a pint of order, Mr. Dean. Amendment No. 22 was left to me to deal with at a later stage in our proceedings.

Mr. Powell: As I have been assisted by those interventions, and as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were not proposing to make a meal of this group of amendments, perhaps I might allude briefly in advance to amendment No. 22.
As one who has strenuously and for some 35 years protested whenever he had an opportunity, against the franchise being enjoyed in Britain by those who are not of British nationality — including those who hold Irish

passports and no other — I should not be acting in accordance with that point of view. Although I can see the logic of arguing that, since that is the electoral law, an Irish passport ought to be a prescribed document, I shall give expression to my prejudices on this subject, so long maintained and expressed, by supporting amendment No. 22 should it also go to a vote.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As I said in our discussion on the previous group of amendments, we can do one of two things in this Bill. Either we can try to find as strong a way as possible to help the legitimate voter and hinder the illegitimate voter or, if we proceed, as is proposed in the Bill, with many diverse documents, we shall hinder the legitimate voter and make it possible for the illegitimate voter to succeed in voting.
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that there are great difficulties associated with getting a system and a machinery that fits the bill perfectly. There should be the strictest possible supervision of the presiding officer during voting and, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) said, voters should bring their polling cards with them. Such suggestions are helpful. The same is true of the suggestion made by the absent hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who suggested that, at registration, everyone should sign and give their date of birth. Such information could be given in duplicate so that when an elector went to a polling station, the presiding officer could ask him to sign his name and provide his date of birth and compare that information with his copy. The Government might have taken that suggestion on board.
Identification cards could be produced during the qualifying period during which time the elector could be photographed. If people are keen on voting they would have to make that sacrifice. After all, everyone in America has to register personally. I realise that there are difficulties, but if the Government are to achieve what they want to achieve, they must pursue a suitable method.
As to amendment No. 22, I am not having passports from the Irish Republic being produced in Northern Ireland, as that gives credence to the people who want all the benefits of British citizenship and then repudiate it. That is part of the problem of Northern Ireland. Such people will accept every privilege that they can get as a British citizen and then repudiate that status.
I remember going on a deputation from the first ill-fated Northern Ireland Assembly—the hon. Member for Foyle who has just entered the Chamber knows that this is correct —with two of his colleagues who were Ministers of the Crown. When we arrived at passport control they had to go to the foreign passports desk to present their Eire passports while we presented our British ones at the other desk. They were supposed to be Ministers of the Crown in Northern Ireland. I am totally opposed to the production of an Eire passport as a document of credence in an election. If such people cannot produce a British passport and do not like British passports, there are other documents available to them. If they are keen to vote, they could have an ID card.
We feel strongly that if the job is to be done it should be done properly. The proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Foyle that people should register their signature and date of birth is sound. We should not leave gaping loopholes—which are present in the Bill—for Sinn Fein to exploit vigorously as has been the case in the


past. What will the Secretary of State do with presiding officers who are members of Sinn Fein? He had better consider that and examine presiding officers and election workers, who are recruited by the chief electoral officer, who are known to be members of or workers in Sinn Fein. How will he deal with them?

Mr. Peter Archer: I apologise to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for my absence at the beginning of his speech, especially as I propose to disagree with his thesis. If it helps to mitigate my offence, might I say that I thoroughly agree with the suggestion that he properly ascribed to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that the date of birth and signature of each elector should be given on the returns from each household and be available to the presiding officer.
I see nothing shocking in the principle of requiring people to carry identity cards. I do not believe that it would be the beginning of some Orwellian nightmare, even though the year is 1984. So far as I know, it did not occasion any civil liberty problems when applied to Britain during the second world war, and it does not shock our fellow member states of the EEC.
As I ventured to say earlier, we do not have to debate every issue as though it was a vital matter of principle. Sometimes a question may turn on balancing effectiveness against inconvenience. To me it does not seem to matter that an elector should be asked to produce a document which he or she is not required by law to carry, pace the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), provided that that document is available to produce. A medical card still appears to me to be reasonably good evidence of identity, even though a person is entitled in law to tear it up and bum the pieces.
What alternative should be available as evidence for someone who cannot produce a medical card, and what questions a presiding officer should be allowed to ask about discrepancies, are matters to be decided pragmatically.
8 pm
Nor does it trouble me that among the documents which electors may produce to identify themselves there may be documents issued by foreign Governments, provided that they are a reasonably accurate means of identification. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) sometimes debates these matters as though they related directly to a cataclysm, but there is nothing wicked about possessing a document issued by a foreign Government. I do not agree that this is a question of fundamental principle. It seems to me that it is a question of what is sensible evidence.
The question confronting the Committee is whether, in order to meet the problem of personations at elections, it is sensible to introduce a requirement that everyone shall carry an identity card, thereby embarking on the whole business of printing them, inviting applications, checking them and issuing them. That is not something on which we should embark lightly if there is an acceptable alternative. As the right hon. Member for South Down said, the difficulties about getting them into the hands of electors seem to be so formidable as to invite us to dismiss the proposal.
If we fear that some electors, who do not spend every waking moment reflecting on the conduct of elections, may arrive at the polling station without their medical card or with a driving licence bearing a wrong address, that

does not allay my fears that some people may have lost their identity card, which it is hoped they will not be asked to produce every day of their lives. They may have lost it within the last seven or eight months without having noticed, or they may simply arrive at the polling station having left it in the pocket of their other coat. I therefore doubt whether, in the words of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, the amendments will help the legitimate voter.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members who have argued for these amendments, because it grates upon my every instinct to find myself repeatedly supporting a Government with a record like the present one. But, the argument ad hominem is dangerous. We must decide each of these matters on their merits, and again I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the amendments.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have from the beginning of our discussion been consistent in arguing that the right method of dealing with the problem of personation — which all hon. Members acknowledge—is the issuing of identity cards to electors. Their scheme for dealing with the problem differs in some respects from that of the right hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and for South Down (Mr. Powell), although they have acknowledged the merits of each other's scheme. It also differs from that of the Government.
I note from amendment No. 70 that the proposal now before the Committee is not that a general purpose identity should be issued but that the chief electoral officer should issue an electoral identity card bearing the photograph, name and address, date of birth and signature of the registered elector.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has just said, this option should not be ruled out a priori. It is not so objectionable in principle that it should not be considered by a sensible Government or a sensible Committee of this House. That option was very carefully considered by my predecessor and his colleagues and also by me, and I should like to explain the reasons for coming to the conclusion that this should not be a path that we should tread and that the scheme which would be erected on that basis would be less likely to produce the result we are aiming at than the scheme in the Bill.
That would be regarded as a radical departure from the tradition of the liberty of the individual and the right to privacy. I readily admit that the scheme in the Bill imposes upon the elector a restriction and requirement which does not now exist and which some will find inconvenient, even difficult. However, the scheme embodied in the amendment would multiply those difficulties.
There is also a genuine practical problem about enforcement and about making such a scheme work without disfranchising a considerable number of electors. Under the amendment, a person wanting to exercise the franchise would be obliged to apply to the chief electoral officer with a passport-type photograph in order to obtain an electoral identity card. If he failed to produce a photograph, details of date of birth and a signature, that would entail disfranchisement.
The right hon. Member for South Down, while supporting the amendment and preferring it to the Government's scheme, courteously drew attention to some


of the difficulties that would result from such a scheme. In practice, such a measure would require the willing cooperation of the elector. Those hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats will clearly perceive that it is not difficult to see how this measure could, for propaganda purposes, be turned against Government and democracy by having sinister motives ascribed to it. It could easily be alleged that the purpose of introducing such a measure was not to do with the right to vote or the need to deal with personation but had more to do with security. The hon. Member for Belfast, East dealt with that point fairly, because he said that he would not object if the electoral identity card was used for other purposes. With that remark, he illustrated the narrow line that we are treading.
I know perfectly well that many hon. Members believe that the libertarian argument against identity cards has been overstated, or that it is out of date, and that most of our electors might be willing to accept identity cards, not just for the purpose stated in the amendment but much more widely. I understand the argument to that effect, but I do not believe that this Bill is the place in which it should be enshrined, because I believe that it would have to be argued more generally in a United Kingdom context.
There would be a worry about a possible mass boycott of the system which the amendment would erect. It would be alleged that the measure was a deliberate Government attempt to disfranchise those who for civil liberty reasons refused to apply for identity cards. If the effort to arouse a boycott were successful, many voters might effectively disfranchise themselves. That would clearly distort the result of subsequent elections, thereby frustrating the purpose of the Bill and, indeed, the purpose of every democratic party in this House. One cannot prove that this would happen but I think that it is a real danger.
There was another argument that weighed with the Government in reaching our decision. We hope—we have never disguised the fact—that we shall be able to take action against personation in the next electoral contest in the Province. The House of Commons will be aware that the district council elections will take place in May 1985. The system that the amendment proposes would be expensive but I do not dwell upon that. It would be cumbersome and it could not be in place in time for the elections in May 1985. A partially implemented system would be arbitrary and unfair and would seriously distort the results. However, we are anxious in the next electoral contest to prevent the distortions which personation brings and the invasion of democratic rights which personation, without the Bill, would possibly and probably bring about.
Having examined carefully the possibility that lies behind the amendment, we concluded that the right course would be to require voters to produce one of a number of specified documents.
We should all be ready to learn from experience. The phrase about launching into uncharted waters has been taken up by some Unionist Members. We should not be reluctant to admit the need for change when that need is proved. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley may be right — I hope that he is — in supposing that as our debates proceed it will be shown that we have been impressed by some of the arguments which have been brought before the Committee while the Bill has been considered.
We believe, after much careful thought, that the scheme in the Bill is the soundest one that can be put before the Committee at this stage. If, in the light of later experience, it proves to need change, it should be changed. All hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will be alert to that need and to that experience. However, we believe now, having listened to all the arguments with care, that the scheme in the Bill is preferable to the one in the amendment.
Amendment No. 22 forms part of the group of amendments that we are considering but, as the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Belfast, East have said, it raises a somewhat different issue. It would be unnecessary if the other amendments in the group were accepted. If there were only one prescribed document, the point of amendment No. 22 would have been met. I understand the argument that the hon. Member for Antrim, North produced and which the right hon. Member for South Down is prepared to sustain. That is an argument about the franchise, but the Bill is not concerned with that. I have no doubt that there will be other opportunities to discuss whether those who might under the Bill use an Irish passport as one of the prescribed documents should have the vote, but that issue is not before the Committee. I realise that that is an argument that we shall hear from time to time.
In the course of considering the Bill, I do not think that it would be sensible to make it exceptionally difficult for those in that position to exercise that right. I understand the strength of the argument and the feeling behind it. The right hon. Member for South Down used the word "prejudice" but I would not have used it myself. I am aware of the strength of feeling that underlies the drafting of amendment No. 22 and the support for it, but I do not think that that has a part in our consideration of the Bill. For these reasons I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am tempted to repeat the comments that I made when introducing the amendment. The Committee will recall that I talked about the Government's bulldozer being in top gear and suggested that the Bill would be pushed through come what may. One might have expected a crumb of comfort from the Secretary of State. He might have said, for example, "We are not prepared to have purpose-made identity cards as the only prescribed document, but we recognise that there are limitations with the documents that we have suggested and we shall be prepared to include purpose-made identity cards as one of the prescribed documents for those who cannot readily put their hands on any of the others." Not even that crumb of comfort was offered to us.
I am not sure whether it is amazing or amusing that the Secretary of State argues for a Bill that seeks to set out for the people of Northern Ireland rules and standards that are different from those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom and then complains that the amendment is a "radical departure". If there are radical departures, the Bill is the most radical of all. It seeks to treat one part of the United Kingdom differently from another. If it is enacted, electors in one part of the United Kingdom will be treated differently from those in others. I do not accept that the expense will be such as to cause Government to turn away


from the idea. Similarly, I do not accept that the delay that might be experienced before May is a good enough reason far turning down a better way of dealing with personation.
If we intend effectively to tackle the problem of personation, there is no point in proceeding in a halfhearted way. If we are not positive, people will have to suffer for no net result. I urge" the Government to consider, even when the Bill has been discussed in Committee and when they are presenting it to the House of Commons for further consideration, allowing purpose-made identity cards to be used in some small measure. If they are used as just one of the prescribed documents, the benefits of having them will soon become apparent, and other of the prescribed documents might be removed at a later stage. In due course identity cards might become the only prescribed documents. With the Secretary of State displaying his "Not an inch" approach, I am forced reluctantly to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 144.

Division No.26]
[8.18 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


McCusker, Harold
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, J.
Mr. Peter Robinson and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Rev. Ian Paisley.


NOES


Alton, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ancram, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Ashby, David
Freeman, Roger


Ashdown, Paddy
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Galley, Roy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beith, A. J.
Gow, Ian


Benyon, William
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter
Harris, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Harvey, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Brinton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayward, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Hickmet, Richard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Tom


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Conway, Derek
Howells, Geraint


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hume, John


Couchman, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dover, Den
Johnston, Russell


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Kennedy, Charles


Eggar, Tim
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Kirkwood, Archy


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Favell, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lang, Ian


Fletcher, Alexander
Latham, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan





Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Spence, John


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Nellist, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Norris, Steven
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Waddington, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Penhaligon, David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wallace, James


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watson, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitfield, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Woodcock, Michael


Silvester, Fred



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tony Durant and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
. Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 9 and inser—
'(1B) With a view to reaching his decision under the foregoing paragraph, the officer or clerk may invite the voter to produce to him a prescribed document or more than one prescribed documents and shall, if the voter complies, take that document or documents into consideration in reaching his decision, without prejudice to consideration of any other evidence which the voter may produce'.—[Mr. Molyneaux.]

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 136.

Division No. 27]
[8.27 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McCusker, Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Maginnis, Ken
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nellist, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, J.
Mr. A. Cecil Walker and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross.




NOES


Alton, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashdown, Paddy
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Coombs, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, John


Beith, A. J.
Couchman, Jamas


Benyon, William
Cranborne, Viscount


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Braine, Sir Bernard
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Favell, Anthony


Bruinvels, Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher, Alexander


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fookes, Miss Janet


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)






Franks, Cecil
Norris, Steven


Freeman, Roger
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Galley, Roy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Gower, Sir Raymond
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gregory, Conal
Penhaligon, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Harris, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Harvey, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hawksley, Warren
Scott, Nicholas


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Henderson, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hickmet, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Hicks, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holt, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hooson, Tom
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Spence, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stern, Michael


Hume, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hunter, Andrew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Johnston, Russell
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Kennedy, Charles
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Thurnham, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Tracey, Richard


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Waddington, David


Knowles, Michael
Walden, George


Latham, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Waller, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lilley, Peter
Watson, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Major, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Mates, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Meadowcroft, Michael



Miscampbell, Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Neubert, Michael
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'No document shall be required to be produced for voting purposes other than a document issued by or with the authority of the United Kingdom Government.'—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 135.

Division No. 28]
[8.37 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


McCusker, Harold
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, J.
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Mr. Peter Robinson.


NOES


Alton, David
Benyon, William


Ancram, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blackburn, John


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Ashdown, Paddy
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Bright, Graham

Brinton, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lang, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm
Latham, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chapman, Sydney
Meadowcroft, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Miscampbell, Norman


Conway, Derek
Nellist, David


Coombs, Simon
Neubert, Michael


Cope, John
Norris, Steven


Couchman, James
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Cranborne, Viscount
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dorrell, Stephen
Pawsey, James


Dover, Den
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Duffy, A. E. P.
Penhaligon, David


Durant, Tony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
Roe, Mrs Marion


Emery, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Evennett, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Fallon, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Favell, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alexander
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Skeet, T. H. H.


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Skinner, Dennis


Franks, Cecil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Freeman, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Spence, John


Galley, Roy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stern, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Harris, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Harvey, Robert
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hayward, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thurnham, Peter


Hickmet, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Holt, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Hooson, Tom
Waddington, David


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Walden, George


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Waller, Gary


Howells, Geraint
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Watson, John


Hume, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Whitfield, John


Hunter, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Wood, Timothy


Johnston, Russell
Woodcock, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Mr. John Major and


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 2, line 16, at end inser—
'(2A) The following shall be inserted after rule 36 (challenge of voter—
(36A) At the time a person applies for a ballot paper, a candidate or his election or polling agent may require the presiding officer or clerk to produce to him any document which that person has produced to the presiding officer or clerk under the foregoing provisions of this section.".'— [Mr. Molyneaux.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 126.

Division No. 29]
[8.47 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McCusker, Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Maginnis, Ken
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nellist, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, J.
Mr. William Ross and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. A. Cecil Walker.


NOES


Alton, David
Hunter, Andrew


Ancram, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashby, David
Johnston, Russell


Ashdown, Paddy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Beith, A. J.
Knowles, Michael


Benyon, William
Lang, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Latham, Michael


Blackburn, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Bottomley, Peter
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Lyell, Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Meadowcroft, Michael


Bright, Graham
Neubert, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Norris, Steven


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Onslow, Cranley


Bruinvels, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Budgen, Nick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Pawsey, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Chapman, Sydney
Penhaligon, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Conway, Derek
Roe, Mrs Marion


Coombs, Simon
Rowe, Andrew


Cope, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Couchman, James
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Cranborne, Viscount
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Dover, Den
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Durant, Tony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dykes, Hugh
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Emery, Sir Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Evennett, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
Spence, John


Favell, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fletcher, Alexander
Stern, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Franks, Cecil
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Freeman, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Galley, Roy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Gregory, Conal
Thurnham, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Tracey, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Harris, David
Waddington, David


Harvey, Robert
Walden, George


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Wallace, James


Hawksley, Warren
Waller, Gary


Hayward, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Watson, John


Hickmet, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Holt, Richard
Whitfield, John


Hooson, Tom
Wood, Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Woodcock, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Mr. John Major and


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'satisfactorily answering' and insert
answering to the satisfaction of the presiding officer".
This is a probing amendment. It deals with that very narrow ground of tendered ballot papers.
The new rule 4O(1B) seems to provide for the case where a vote has already been stolen or alleged to have been stolen and then the real elector turns up to claim his or her vote and presumably produces one of the prescribed documents.
We have to accept that the person who had stolen the vote would also have produced, say, Mr. McCusker's out-of-date medical card or some such document. If the person whose vote has been stolen already then persists in claiming the vote, presumably the presiding officer will put the statutory questions contained in the Representation of the People Act, the first one being:
Are you the person registered in the register of parliamentary electors for this election as follows,"?
and then he will read the entire entry from the register. He then puts the second question, which is:
Have you already voted, here or elsewhere, at this by-election, otherwise than as proxy for some other person?
I am genuinely seeking clarification in this probing amendment. Presumably, at that point the presiding officer is acting on his own initiative and puts the statutory questions on his own initiative, without having any requests from any polling agents.
We take the view that the statutory questions would not add greatly to the presiding; officer's store of knowledge. If the person applying for a vote is an imposter and not the genuine voter whose name appears on the register, human nature being what it is, the imposter will not say, "Goodness me, I am not the person whose name appears on the register and for whom I am attempting to vote. I am a very naughty boy." Having stolen one of the prescribed documents from the real voter, the imposter will not forsake his evil ways and confess his crime simply because he is required to give two answers, in which case he would give the answer yes to the first question and no to the second.
9 pm
While the statutory questions were no doubt considered adequate under the procedures and practices applying in times past, and even up till now under previous legislation, they are a little ridiculous in the context of this Bill. I have no wish to delay the Committee, but my right hon. and hon. Friends would appreciate some clarification from the Minister.

Mr. Scott: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has correctly set out the procedures that will be followed in the polling station up to the point where the statutory questions are asked and a tendered ballot paper is produced for the elector who alleges that his vote has been stolen. He would then be asked to complete a tendered ballot paper and sign it. Those tendered ballot papers would be collected separately from the ordinary votes and would only then have their validity adjudged in the event of an election petition. It would then be for an election court to decide on the identity of the voter and whether he was the person whom he claimed to be. The fact that he has signed the ballot paper should be a substantial additional help to the election court in making


up its mind whether the person is who he says he is. The right hon. Gentleman is right, in that the presiding officer has to ask the statutory questions of the person seeking to pass a tendered vote.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a further point? I was not sure which side of this question my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was taking. It appears to me that the person referred to in subsection (5) (1C) is a person who has been refused a ballot paper on the ground that the document raises a reasonable doubt whether he is that person. That appears to refer to the person in subsection (5) (IB), next preceding, and that person is the person to whom the presiding officer has refused to deliver a ballot paper.

Mr. Scott: If the right hon. Gentleman looks back earlier in the clause, he will see that that is only on the grounds that someone else has already passed a vote.

Mr. Molyneaux: During this complicated procedure, which is almost a double procedure, in which a document is produced by the real elector as opposed to the personator, and the statutory questions are put, do the polling agents have access to the information? Is that presiding officer entitled to say, "Here is a chap who says that he is John Simpson; what do you feel about that?" It would be difficult for such an operation to take place. The polling agents representing the candidates have some knowledge of the matter. To avoid difficulties at a later stage, it would be useful if we could have clarification on this point. Subsection (5) states:
The following shall be inserted after rule 40 (1) (person entitled to mark a tendered ballot paper after another has voted)".
It seems to me that paragraphs (1A), (IB) and (1C) all descend from that parentage. Is that the position?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am, perhaps, revealing my incomprehension another stage further. I have difficulty in fully accepting that interpretation. Line 41 on page 2 which states
Paragraph (1C) of rule 37
is surely a reference to (1C) in line 7 on the same page, because we have written it into rule 37. An elector who is refused a ballot paper under paragraph (1C) of rule 37 is a person to whom it has been refused because of the reasonable doubt raised by the document. If that is so— I seem to discern certain signs of assent from the Undersecretary of State— we are apparently engaging in a charade. The person says, "I would like to offer a tendered vote." The presiding officer, who has already told him to his face that he is not the elector in question, proceeds to put the statutory question to him: "Are you the elector on the electoral roll?" Knowing that he can lie as well as tell the truth in answer to a statutory question and that the answer is still deemed to be satisfactory on the interpretation of the statute, the elector says, "Yes." Thereupon, the same presiding officer who has refused him a ballot paper on the ground that he is not the elector in question and who has been lied to in the answer to the statutory question says, "Here is a tendered ballot paper. Fill it out, old chap, and sign it." That seems to be a piece of pantomime.

Mr. Scott: That decision of, and judgment exercised by, the presiding officer can then be overturned in an

election court on a petition. That is inherent in our approach. I apologise to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for intervening too quickly with my previous answer. The presiding officer has the opportunity to provide that tendered ballot paper and insist that the elector is the person he says he is. Only then can an election court overturn the judgment of the presiding officer.

Mr. Powell: Just imagine Sinn Fein doing all that.

Mr. William Ross: May we carry this a stage further? What happens if there is a large number of ballot papers? My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has asked: what if Sinn Fein did this on a large scale? That is not inconceivable. Surely that would cause severe problems in the election in question.
Will the Government consider the whole area of tendered ballot papers more deeply than appears to be the case so far? If I recall correctly words spoken in this debate, a record is kept of the number of tendered ballot papers. A record is not kept of the number of people who were turned away when they applied for their vote and either found that it had been taken up, or were challenged in some way or another. If we are to arrive at a real understanding of personation, would it not be a good idea to keep a record of the number of tendered ballot papers and the number of people who apply for a ballot paper but, being refused, simply go away without filling in the tendered ballot paper?

Mr. Scott: Presumably, an "election" petition might be considered only if the number of tendered ballot papers applied for exceeded the majority. That avenue would be open in other circumstances as well. I think that it would be likely that that action would be taken only in those circumstances where the result of the election was likely to be overturned because of the validation and then counting of the tendered ballot papers.
It is open to any elector who arrives at a polling station and finds that his vote has been cast to ask for a tendered ballot paper. A large number decide that the game is not worth the candle and go away. If they have that opportunity, I can detect no useful purpose in having a separate record.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) asked whether any point was served by asking statutory questions. Someone who could be shown to have falsely answered a statutory question to the presiding officer would then be open to prosecution.

Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 13, at end add—
'(7) In this Act "a prescribed document" means one of the following documents, that is to say,

(a) a current GB or Northern Ireland driving licence;
(b) a current United Kingdom, United Kingdom Visitors, or Republic of Ireland passport;
(c) a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland;
(d) a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Services Agency; and
(e) a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar-General for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, in the case only of a woman married since the qualifying date for the register used in the election;



(8) the Secretary of State may by regulation under section 201 of the 1983 Act remove from or add to the documents listed in the preceding subsection.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments to the proposed amendment:

(a), leave out paragraph (a).
(b), leave out paragraph (b).
(c), leave out paragraph (c).
(d), leave out paragraph (d).
(e), leave out from 'woman' to end of line 11.

Mr. Powell: I can be brief in moving this amendment if for no other reason than that the contents of subsection (7), which are the principal part of it, are not of my own composition and are shamelessly pirated from a document provided by the Governmen—for which, of course, I take no responsibility.
The purpose of the amendment is to do what I submit should have been done from the beginning—to write on to the face of the Bill what the Government intend shall, at any rate initially, be the prescribed documents for the purpose of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill, as we know exhaustively, is to make it mandatory upon all electors as a condition of casting their vote to produce satisfactorily one of the prescribed documents. Consequently, the nature of the prescribed document—what they ar—is central to the efficacy of the Bill. It would not be satisfactory, in the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that they should only be stated by prescription which takes place under regulation. The making of such regulations would not permit of the proper examination of the documents to which they have been subjected hitherto, and your decision, Mr. Walker, that we can at the same time discuss amendments (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) will facilitate that for the Committee.
I hope that the Government will make an honest woman of the Bill by accepting the amendment. If the amendment is accepted, there will be no additional constraint or limitation upon the Secretary of State's opportunity to modify by addition or subtraction the prescribed documents, because subsection (8) of the amendment gives him the power to do that by regulation under the principal Act.
If experience so dictates, the Secretary of State can, therefore, remove some of the documents or add to them subsequently. I am sure that the Committee was interested to hear the Secretary of State, on an earlier amendment, explaining that following the first experience of the implementation of the Act he would be alert to consider whether amendment of its provisions was justified. Presumably that will include the amendment of this provision, if it becomes a provision of the Bill itself.
It had occurred to some of us that Governments, when they have a Bill on the statute book, are more reluctant to find time for amending it than they were initially to find time for putting it on the statute book. The worry here is that there might be a Secretary of State—one hopes that it might be this Secretary of State — who, after the experience of next May, would say to himself, "Those hon. Members were right in Committee. I must go back to the House of Commons and amend the Bill, in such and such a respect."
I do not believe that a Secretary of State who went to his Cabinet colleagues and the Legislation Committee and

asked for an urgent slot in the Government's legislative programme would receive an encouraging welcome. They might be inclined to make snide remarks about his original legislation. They would certainly be inclined to say, "You have had your ration of legislative time for a Session or two. Now keep quiet and put up with whatever it is that you have got on to the statute book." How can that be remedied? It could be remedied— perhaps this is something which we could consider at a later stage—if this legislation, as with so many provisions which apply to Northern Ireland, had a limited time validity so that in any case it would be necessary to come back to Parliament after a lapse of one, two or three years either to renew it or to amend it. That surely would give the Secretary of State a stronger hand, if lie had himself come to the conclusion that amendment was necessary.
9.15 pm
However, in the case of a prescribed document, the Secretary of State will not need to legislate if the amendment is accepted, since he can add to or subtract from such documents by legislation. I hope that the value of the amendment will be brought out by the contributions of my hon. Friends.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In speaking to the amendment I should like also to refer to sub-amendment (c), which stands in my name.
I welcome the general tenor of the amendment because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has said, we believe that it is important to have the provision within the Bill rather than to leave the matter to regulation. My right hon. Friend talked about milking an "honest woman" of the Bill. Perhaps in these days of equality it would be just as; easy to make an honest man of the Bill.
I believe that one of the main reasons for the Bill is to have the legislation in being before next year's local government elections. Therefore, it is possible that there has not been sufficient time in which to reach a conclusion as to what would be satisfactory documents. For that reason, it is most important that subsection (8) should be added to clause 1. It would give latitude to the Secretary of State in the coming days; to make, under section 201 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, a change to more accurate and purposeful documents.
I should like to put on record my misgivings about: the reference in subsection (7)(e) to
a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar-General for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland".
I am not altogether convinced that it is needed. I am somewhat befuddled as to why a person whose name appears on the register should then have to give proof of being married. Especially in this age, there are many women who continue to exercise the right, after marriage, to use their maiden name. As long as it is clear that the person is the person on the register, I do not think that the name is so important. I am, however, concerned to know why the qualification should be
a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar-General for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland".
I understand the argument to some extent, because on Second Reading it was said that it had been decided that it should be a document issued by the registrar general. I cannot speak with authority for England, Scotland and Wales but I understand the tradition in Northern Ireland to be that the certificate issued by the priest, the clerk in holy


orders or the minister is, strictly speaking, a document issued by the registrar general. I know that during my ministry there was a small change in that, in that copies of the marriage certificate printed under the title of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland were not accepted by some people. We had to use copies of certificates issued by the registrar general. I am not quibbling with that. I understood that it was said on Second Reading that the certificate had to be issued strictly by a clerk in a council or the registrar general's office. Apart from the problems of getting the records through to those people, which would cause at least three months' delay, I wonder why that restriction is imposed. Is it indirectly casting a slur—I do not believe that that was the Government's intention, but I must tease out the reason for the restriction —on priests, clergymen and ministers? Are the Government saying that they might be prone to issue such certificates too freely without querying whom they were giving them to? If that was the reason for the restriction, it does not stand up to the light of judgment.
As I understand the practice, anyone can go to a registry office and, on due payment of the correct sum, request a copy of the marriage certificate. We shall not curtail the circulation of such certificates to prevent them being misused by people with a malevolent purpose by restricting the issue of the document to a clerk in a council office or the registrar general's office. Therefore, I query why the Government need to make that restriction. I suspect that there is less likelihood of a local priest or minister issuing the document to someone whom he knows is not the person to whom the certificate refers. I have discovered in 25 years of parish ministry that there are such practices in the issuing of death certificates and marriage certificates by council officers. Many people get certificates solely on payment of the appropriate fee.
Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider the requirement for the marriage certificate to be issued specifically by the registrar general. If it means that the tradition in Northern Ireland, which has been an accepted method of issuing certificates, is no longer acceptable, that is a slur on many fine men and at the same time calls in question the Government's real purpose.
I should like to draw attention to subsection (7)(c), which refers to
a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland.
I can understand that there are those who hold on like grim death to their pension book, social security papers, benefit books and so on, but I am not convinced that these in themselves are sufficient safeguards to prevent people from misusing those documents. I say that for several reasons.
First, the people against whom I understand the Bill is directly aimed, those who have carried on a military campaign of personation, are capable of borrowing such books. It is not beyond their capacity so to do. One might say that people will not give their books away, but they will have little choice if that is done as a military operation. We might be told that the measure will at least allow people to give evidence that the books are being misused—if Paddy Malachy or, to keep it non-sectarian, Willie and Alec turn up and happen to have on them some of those documents. However, in the Ulster situation, it

appears difficult to prove that those people had the documents for the purpose of personation. I say that because I know that Ulster people are remarkably friendly. It is a closely interconnected community and an extraordinary number of people draw old people's pensions for them out of sheer kindness. It would be extremely difficult to get anyone to give evidence in a court of law to prove that a pension book had been used for personation because the consequences for people living in the community might well be too horrible to contemplate.
I believe, therefore, that it would be much better to have a defined document. That is why I support the principle of the amendment and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the Bill should be altered accordingly. I hope that the Government will confirm that no slur on ministers, priests or clergymen was intended in seeking to restrict the definition of a marriage certificate to documents issued by the registrar general. I also question whether pension and benefit books, which often go astray in the post, are an effective use of identification.

Mr. William Ross: My amendment (a) seeks to delete the reference to
a current GB or Northern Ireland driving licence".
I understand that there are about 500,000 driving licences in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland licence carries the name of the holder and his address at the time of receipt. A photograph is pinned into it and the licence is valid for three years, renewable for a further three years. I understand that it is shortly to be replaced by a 10-year licence. We all change quite a lot in five or six years. Given the type of photograph that usually goes into a passport or driving licence, after 10 years the person may well be unrecognisable from the photograph.
The licence has space for one or two changes of address which are supposed to be filled in and the relevant authority notified as soon as the person changes his address. It should be noted, however, that it is not the authorities who fill it in. The person concerned merely has to notify them. Therefore, anyone getting hold of a licence could fill in a new address to match that on the electoral roll and then present himself at the polling station with the licence, possibly having replaced the photograph. When challenged, he could say that he used to live at the original address but that the new address was shown over the page. Any objection to the document would then vanish.
Many people in Northern Ireland, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), have Great Britain driving licences which do not have photographs attached. The idea that a driving licence is in any way proof positive that the individual standing before the presiding officer is the person on the register that he claims to be is simply not correct. It is possible to get hold of driving licences and to alter them in such a way as to make them acceptable, especially in hard-line areas where personation takes place on a massive scale.
I am simply drawing the attention of the Committee once again to the fact that none of these documents are documents which the citizen must possess, and that they are all defective to some degree in identifying the individual.
There is also the possibility that a person might have lost his driving licence, which could be the only prescribed document that he would normally possess. The driving licence could have been sent away for renewal. There


could be half a dozen reasons why the individual may not be in possession of his licence, and he could then be deprived of his right to cast a vote.
9.30 pm
Amendment (e) to amendment No. 9 takes up what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was talking about a few moments ago. I should like to ask the Minister whether a marriage certificate means a certified copy of a marriage certificate, or something less than that. It is not difficult to obtain a marriage certificate. One can write and ask for one just as one can write and ask for a birth certificate. As far as I am aware, there is no great difficulty in that and there is no reason for the certificate to be refused.
There is also the problem of the change of name which arises whenever a woman is married between the qualifying date, 15 September, and the date of the issue of the new register, which is 15 February. Hundreds of marriages, or perhaps a couple of thousand, take place in the intervening period, and the women who change their names will have to take along their marriage certificates in order to prove that they are who they say they are. Perhaps that is all very well.
However, let us suppose that, although a woman has lived in Northern Ireland for a number of years, has become a British citizen and is entitled to vote in Northern Ireland, her original home was in the Irish Republic. She wants to get married on Christmas day or shortly thereafter, and she and her husband-to-be go off to County Donegal to get married. Later, she goes to vote, taking notification of her change of address and name, and she is asked for her marriage certificate. Under the Bill, the marriage certificate must have been issued by the registrar-general for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. This lady was not married in any of those countries. Her marriage certificate is a perfectly valid document but it is not acceptable for this purpose. In that respect, the legislation is defective.
It is astonishing that, although the Government were so anxious to add to the legislation a reference to the passport of the Republic of Ireland, they have not thought of including the marriage certificate of the Republic of Ireland. It seems as though those who were thinking through the legislation stopped thinking whenever they reached the end of (b) or perhaps (d).
There are a number of other difficulties. Let us suppose that the girl who gets married after 15 September happens to be aged under 18 on 15 September, which is the qualifying date. If the girl who gets married after 15 September is under 18 and her family move house between 15 September and her marriage, or if her name was omitted from the electoral register and the family moved, it would be possible under existing registration procedure for her to ask to be entered on the electoral register before her marriage. She would then register at her parents' new address. Her parents would still be registered at the old address. Our party agents face such difficulties. How will all that be sorted out if she is married in County Mayo rather than Donegal? There are unforeseen difficulties which the Minister might not like but must face.
Examination of the prescribed documents leads one to the conclusion that the only satisfactory one is an identity card. Anything else runs into severe difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) has had a sore time ever since he produced his medical card.
No doubt the Minister has often looked at hi—I have not seen mine for 25 years. It probably looks worn. Although it might be difficult to produce drivers' licences or identity cards, it is not difficult to make many medical cards, which are the simplest and most effective available form of identification. The only possibility of stopping large-scale personation with those cards is to catch somebody with them. That is extremely difficult. On receipt of a blank medical card a person has only to fill it in with information that does not have to be truthful. It need only look truthful.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is nonsense.

Mr. Ross: Well, medical cards are simply pieces of printed card showing certain information. That information includes a medical number but there is no medical number on the register of electors so there is nothing to compare it with. It is so much gobbledegook. Nobody will start checking the numbers at 6 pm on election day. The cards will be accepted.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman tempts me. I am quite prepared to accept that it is possible to fill in a medical application form without difficulty and that there is a chance of it being inaccurate or imaginative. However, medical records of people who are on a general practitioner's list are one of the few statistics that can be checked accurately, as they are the basis on which doctors are paid.

Mr. Ross: It is clear that the hon. Lady has not paid attention to the debate or to the issues before the Committee. I am not talking about properly issued medical cards or about medical records. I am talking about forgeries. There is no way in which such cards can be checked, because as soon as someone leaves the polling station, the card will be thrown into the bin and will be lost for evermore.
This card is easy to forge. It is easy to make it look realistic. Like myself, many people will realise that a new medical card is the one document that can be easily obtained, and I suspect that between now and May hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of new medical cards will be sought in Northern Ireland for the purposes of this election.

Mr. McCusker: My hon. Friend may be right.

Mr. Ross: It is better to travel hopefully, but no doubt the evil day will arrive in May. When it does, I suspect that the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench, who have been so assiduous in welcoming the Bill, will have egg on their faces.

Mr. McCusker: If there are any eggs left in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend says, "If there are any eggs left".

Mr. McCusker: My hon. Friend should not get involved in that argument.

Mr. Ross: I shall follow my hon. Friend's advice, and proceed.
The series of documents mentioned in the Bill will not be completely watertight, foolproof or effective. Some of them can be stolen or borrowed. For example, we are all aware of what happened on the west bank of Londonderry


in recent elections. People were asked for their poll cards and were willing to give them up, only to find that when they went to vote the only ballot paper to which they were entitled was pink.
These same documents can be handed over to others, and some of them can be forged. The situation will be wide open to abuse, and at the end of the day the honest people will suffer. This will make it more difficult for the honest folk of Northern Ireland. It will no doubt cause some difficulties for the dishonest, but not enough to stop the evil that we are trying to prevent. For that reason the Government have got it wrong. They should look at our proposals and take meaningful steps to amend the Bill to bring it more into line with the thinking of those with real experience of Northern Ireland, and who for three days have tried to advise the Government on the right way to proceed instead of continuing bullheaded down the wrong road.

Mr. Beggs: My sub-amendment (b) seeks to leave out paragraph (b) which refers to
a current United Kingdom, United Kingdom Visitors, or Republic of Ireland passport".
We all recognise the need for Government to take appropriate action to prevent personation and the widespread vote-stealing which has occurred. Some of us take great exception to the comment, which from time to time receives much publicity, that there is nothing new about personation and that it is peculiar to anywhere where there is an Irish population. It has been said that it has happened in elections in Chicago and New York. I do not believe that personation is an Irish-only export. We have heard it said that there should be positive Government action on the mainland and personation should not be attributable only to Irish residents or representatives of the population.
9.45 pm
It is not compulsory for United Kingdom citizens to hold United Kingdom passports and it is probably assumed that more people have United Kingdom passports in Northern Ireland than is the fact. I remember a recent occasion when a school made arrangements for a Continental education tour. The teacher who was to accompany the tour was taken ill and it was found that only one other member of staff in that large school had a current passport. It was that member of staff who made it possible for the tour to take place although it had been planned nearly six months earlier. It was necessary for a teacher to accompany those on the tour to ensure adequate supervision and to assist the tour leader. It seems that in a professional group there are few who have full United Kingdom passports and it is reasonable to assume that those who have less need for a United Kingdom passport, or are likely to have less need, will not have one.
Northern Ireland is not known for high earnings that permit travel to other parts of Europe, the United States or the far east. That reduces the need and demand for United Kingdom passports for foreign travel. The Province goes overboard with British campaigns to the extent that the majority buy British and believe in spending on British soil. The people of Northern Ireland visit England, Scotland and Wales in large numbers for their

holidays. Probably a smaller percentage of the Northern Ireland population holds a United Kingdom passport compared with the mainland population.
Most of the elderly who participate in the democratic process do not hold passports. They would not benefit by the inclusion of a current United Kingdom passport in the list of prescribed documents and would be only disadvantaged by its inclusion. When an application for a passport is received a considerable time elapses during which the application is processed, with all the necessary checks and safeguards being carried out, before it is issued. There are seasonal queues for passports. The staff who are responsible for issuing passports would be unable to cope if those who do not presently hold United Kingdom passports were suddenly to apply for them.
I am aware that the United Kingdom passport is highly regarded, but it is not foolproof. There is a belief that some have been successfully forged in the past. The United Kingdom visitors' passport, which is referred to as the quickie passport, is sometimes obtained as a means of jumping the queue or beating the backlog for a full passport. The visitors' passport needs frequently to be renewed and for other reasons is less acceptable than the full passport.
Should passports issued by the Republic of Ireland feature among the prescribed documents? In certain parts of west Belfast, Londonderry and Strabane the production of a United Kingdom passport would identify the holder and perhaps provoke the wrath at a later date of those not sympathetic to holders of United Kingdom passports. There would be resentment in certain parts of Northern Ireland towards those foolish enough to flash around an Irish Republic passport. We must remember that our objective is to assist the democratic process; it is our wish to avoid confrontation.
We must consider the position of the minority in Northern Ireland. Many would conclude that holders of the Irish Republic passport could be supporters of the "Brits Out" campaign. That means every one of us. If we allow our imagination free reign, we might think that some of those holders of Irish Republic passports could also support the bomb and the bullet campaign. That could contribute to conflict in certain areas, which is something that we wish to avoid.
We have no influence on the issue of passports from the Irish Republic. Therefore, we must not place undue confidence in the reliability of that document. Only authentic identity cards produced in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland electors should be valid and acceptable.

Mr. William Ross: It is possible for a Northern Ireland resident to hold two passports. If he drove to Dublin he could obtain a passport of the Irish Republic, and he could also hold a British passport.

Mr. Beggs: It is important that my hon. Friend's point is noted. What he outlined will contribute to the conflict that we are trying to avoid. It is resented in Northern Ireland that some people could, if the Bill is passed, present an Irish Republic passport and so influence the future of those of us who wish to maintain our British links. Such people may not even live in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, yet they could use such a passport to affect the futures of ourselves and our children.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Under the Bill the Secretary of State can, by regulation, introduce other documents and


so add to the list. If the Government are not willing to introduce identity cards with a photograph, date of birth, address and so on, could there not be a system of voluntary identity cards for those who wish to use them to prove their identity? They could be registered on the electoral register with stars by their names, and they would have to produce that card if they wished to vote. Various other cards could be provided or made available if people did not wish to have a photograph taken. Cards similar to bank cheque cards could be taken to polling stations and put through a machine, which would show whether the information was correct. A British Airways commuter card is supplied if one sends a photograph.
The object of the Bill must be to make identification foolproof and to ensure that the person coming to vote is the registered person. That must be clear. I remind those who object to the use of identity cards, either voluntarily or otherwise, that people wishing to drive a car in Northern Ireland must apply for a driver's licence which has their photograph and address on it, and that those who wish to have a passport must also apply with a photograph and their details. It seems peculiar that, if we must have them to drive a car or leave and re-enter the country, people should object to identification for polling purposes. Those who wish to have an identity card with their photograph and details on it should be entitled to have one.

Mr. McCusker: The debate exposes the Bill's weakness and the nonsense of some parts of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) talked about making identification foolproof without introducing identity cards. The entire business of producing a prescribed document is as strong as the weakest prescribed document. The weakest prescribed document is that which is held most generally. Medical cards were included because they were most generally held. Almost everyone can be expected to have a medical card, which is why it is the weakest document. In no sense is it an identity card.
The theory is that a person values that document so much that he will not hand it over easily, and that if a person arrives at a polling station with it it is further evidence that he is the registered voter identified on the medical card. Therefore, the inclusion of passports, driving licences and Department of Health and Social Security booklets are only a bonus. The Minister may argue that that makes it easier for those who have driving licences, passports and so on, but in essence it is only a bonus.
That all boils down to the fact that the medical card should have to be produced by everyone. If that is so, I should have preferred the Minister to say that it was to be the prescribed document. A vigorous campaign could then have been mounted in Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone's medical card was up to date. By having a series of alternatives, we are diluting the possibility of having one card. I regret that we are not basing identification on medical cards or poll cards. The list is a sham. Virtually all of the documents, except medical cards, are available only to a limited number of people. They are included because some of them have photographs, which will help with identification. The medical card does not have a photograph.
This is another evasion of the issue. The Secretary of State has refused to consider issuing identity cards. I look

forward to the Minister addressing the point that the clause is as strong or as weak as the weakest document, which is the medical card.

10 pm

Mr. Scott: The amendments under discussion have two purposes. The first is to incorporate—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Scott: The first purpose of the amendments is to ensure that whatever list of documents is determined is incorporated in the Bill. The second is to provide an opportunity for hon. Members to explore the list of documents that the Government have in mind. We have said since we embarked upon the Bill that, before it completed its stages through the House, the Government would confirm the list of documents that they have in mind, having listened to discussions in the debate The fact that the list of documents was not incorporated in the Bill did not inhibit discussion, even before we came to these amendments, as to the merits of the documents that the Government propose should be included in an order, which would be debated.
To reiterate a general point, I accept, and have done from the start, that in undertaking this task to protect the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland we are moving into uncharted territory. The Government have tried to produce a list of documents sufficiently wide so as not to disfranchise members of the Northern Ireland electorate, but tight enough to deter and inhibit the widespread vote-stealing that has developed in recent years in Northern Ireland. The present list is not foolproof and we may have to change it, but I am clear that it is the best that can be produced in time for the local government elections in May 1985, and we must stick to it. After careful monitoring of those elections, we can see how it works in practice.
May I respond to some of the points made about the documents? I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) about the problem of marriage certificates issued by ministers of religion, but it is right that the Government should stick firmly to the principle that the list of prescribed documents should include only official documents issued by the Government or by Government agencies. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in taking this view, we are not casting a slur on those ministers of religion who have the power to issue other forms of marriage certificate or, indeed, marriage certificates that originate from the Registrar General. The important aspect is that the document, whether it is the original or a certified copy, should be issued by the Registrar General and should bear his stamp.
The problem is not that ministers of religion would abuse their position and issue false marriage certificates, but that the certificates could fall into unauthorised hands,


perhaps through burglaries. We must protect the integrity of the system by restricting it to marriage certificates that have been issued by the Registrar General. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no slur intended on ministers of religion of any faith in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's assurance, but it seems to me that he has missed one aspect of this that I raised, which is that traditionally when a minister or priest issues such a certificate he is acting as an agent of the Registrar General.

Mr. Scott: I accept that, and the Government considered it carefully because it was drawn attention to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) earlier in our discussions. But we ended with the result that I have just reported to the Committee, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed that the Government have come to this decision. To get the payment of allowances, benefit and pension books the very certificate that is asked for in some of these cases is a marriage certificate, and a marriage certificate issued by a minister is acceptable, yet a certificate issued by a clergyman or a priest cannot be used as a document which will be accepted at a polling station. It is amazing that it is a proper document to procure another document but that it is not acceptable in these circumstances.
In keeping with what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, when a minister issues a marriage certificate he is acting as an agent for the Registrar General, and it is the Registrar General's certificate.

Mr. Scott: With respect, the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have listened to what I said earlier. There is the possibility of stocks of these certificates held by ministers of religion in Northern Ireland falling into the wrong hands and being used for purposes of personation. It is right to keep this as tightly controlled as we can.

Mr. John Hume: Will the hon. Gentleman emphasise that there are many ministers of religion in Northern Ireland who are active elected politicians?

Mr. Scott: I would not impugn the integrity of a minister who was also an active politician, least of all in the company in which I find myself at present.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that assurance. However, I understood the Minister to say that it was to protect the integrity of ministers of religion. But there is an official stamp on marriage certificates issued by various council officers or by the Registrar General direct, and the others might be stolen. A stamp on such a certificate would not do anything other than protect the integrity of the issuing minister, because he would not be otherwise involved. But will the Minister address his mind a little further to the time lapse? Why do we need such a document? I do not believe that it is necessary if a person appears on the register under her maiden name.

Mr. Scott: It is a long-stop provision for those married women who might have no other way of showing that the change had occurred. It is worth having it there as a long-stop. It is one that we shall want to monitor, as we shall the other documents and their use, as we go through the elections in May 1985.
I understand the point about someone who was married outside the United Kingdom and who is unable to produce a valid marriage certificate. However, there might be other documents that could be produced by that person. What is more, it would be possible for a married woman in those circumstances to apply for a medical card, which could be issued in her maiden name. She would not be committing any offence by making that application.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Why did the Minister persuade his colleagues to vote against amendment No. 22, when the principle contained in that was that the prescribed documents should be those issued with the approval of the Government? The argument that he is now using to advance the case against the document being asked for by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is that it is not one that has been issued by the Government or a Government agency.

Mr. Scott: I prefer to stick to the amendment that we are discussing, and to defend the balance of judgment to which the Government have come as to the range of documents upon which we have settled. I do not wish to go back over old ground. I know that there is a temptation, and one to which no doubt the Committee will succumb from time to time, either to leap forward to discuss amendments that we have not yet reached or to go back to ones that we have already discussed. I should like to avoid that temptation if it is humanly possible.
A great deal of fun has been had about medical cards but perhaps I should explain for the benefit of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) that the medical card that he produced in the House on Second Reading is not the medical card that is being issued in Northern Ireland now. We are in the process of changing over from the sort of medical card that he has kept at the bottom of his drawer for umpteen years to medical cards that are produced on computer stationery. They are perhaps not as durable as one would like, but they bear a computer printout and the details of the bearer, which would make them difficult to forge.
The cards are issued by the Services Agency in Belfast, where the blanks are held in a store protected with restricted access because they are computer stationery. It would be a bold man who ruled out the possibility of the theft of some of that stock, but it should be difficult to obtain cards. It would also be difficult for anybody who tried to personate in an application for a replacement card, because the computer needs the full name and either the date of birth or the National Health number before it will print out a replacement card. Paramilitary groups would have serious difficulty in obtaining stocks of these cards.

Mr. McCusker: As the Minister will recall, I was one of those who said that I did not think that the paramilitaries would try to steal medical cards, or even print a document. Is my medical card a prescribed document or do I require, by 15 May, a new card? In the election next year will one or other of the cards be valid? As that card is the one that does least to identify, in the sense that there is no photograph on it, and it will not be held by a person with the same care as a book that will bring him in funds, but it is most commonly held card, is it not the one document that should have been used as the prescribed document? If the Minister is now telling me that the new document


is a better one than the original, does that not make my point? Should we not have said that that is the prescribed document?

Mr. Scott: Either document will do. There will be a progressive changeover to the new card, but not in time for everyone to have one by the local government elections.

Mr. McCusker: The cards will be issued?

Mr. Scott: Yes, they will be issued in due course. In the meantime, anybody who wishes to obtain such a card can apply to the agency, and will be issued with one. There will be no problems about issuing them in good time for the May 1985 elections for anybody who claims one.
I accept, as I have accepted in the past, that the medical card may be the weak link, but in future it will not be quite as weak as has been supposed. because of the character of the new documents being issued. The old document includes on it the date of birth, so a certain amount of organisation will have to go into ensuring that anybody who attempts to personate with the card at least approximates the date of birth on the card. That may not be as good as a photograph, and I do not pretend that it is. However, it is some restriction on the fraudulent use of the card. Therefore, it is less easy to abuse a medical card than has been suggested on occasions.
Passports have a photograph on them. As I said on Second Reading, I have borne in mind that the franchise for this House includes citizens of the Republic of Ireland. This Bill applies to parliamentary elections and it is right that a passport issued by the Republic of Ireland should be accepted.
I do not agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) that seems to equate automatically anyone who chooses to have a passport from the Republic of Ireland and to commit himself to an aspiration which is perfectly legitimate and respected in the House with those who seek to subvert the constitution by the use of the bullet or the bomb. I do not believe that that is a valid point. Many constitutional nationalists would bitterly resent any suggestion that the possession of a Republic of Ireland passport should do that.
10.15 pm
The point about voluntary identity cards, which was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), falls against the test that the documents to be produced should be official. As I have said before, going over to a full identity card system raises questions that go far beyond what we are considering in the Bill. In any case, there would be no time to introduce such a system in time for the next election.
We have explored the documents. I have some doubts about the incorporation of the documents in the Bill, but I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. On reflection, I think that it would be right for me to accept the spirit of the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I give an undertaking to bring forward on Report an amendment that will incorporate the list in the body of the Bill. I hope that, in those circumstances, the amendment will be withdrawn. If not, I shall have to advise the Committee to reject it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am glad, if I may borrow the metaphor of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), that the bulldozer appears to have switched off

its engine. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will not regret having made a better Bill by carrying on its face an indication of what are the prescribed documents.
I accept that, if the Under-Secretary of State is to write the list into the Bill—I obtained the words from the notes on clauses with which he was good enough to provide hon. Members—the hon. Gentleman will need to look more acidly at the definition of each of the documents. I hope that the opportunity will he taken especially to consider paragraph (e) — the marriage certificate. I thought that valid points were made during the debate. I hope that this action will provide an opportunity for those points to be considered by the Minister during drafting.
In addition, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider whether the restriction
 since the qualifying date for the register
is indispensable, since there could well be cases where a woman, married shortly before the qualifying date, would still appear on the list of electors in her maiden name, and thus have the same reason for wanting to use this document.
I a grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for having made this improvement to the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that we have had a fairly long debate on clause 1, and it would not be in order to cover ground that has already been covered on the amendments.

Mr. McCusker: I do not intend to do that, Mr. Dean. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer than necessary. The Under-Secretary of State will remember that when we discussed the availability of the prescribed documents to the holding agent he produced some convincing arguments to support the case that the documents should not be made available to the polling agents. I suggested to him that paramilitaries may present what purports to be a prescribed document in such a way that only the presiding officer has the opportunity to decide whether it is a prescribed document. Under pressure the presiding officer may accept that it is, take no further action, and simply deliver the ballot paper.
Secretaries of State in the past have given instructions to presiding officers. During the last election or the one before that, presiding officers were directed to ask a person to state his name and address before the ballot paper was given to him. I do not know whether they all do that, but that was the advice tendered or instruction given. To avoid difficulties for the presiding officer, when he is presented with the prescribed document, could he be permitted to display it to the polling agent? After all, we are now making it law that a document must be produced. He could say, "I have a driving licence, medical certificate or passport in the name of—" and read out the name and address. That does not give away any confidential information, but it would avoid him being put under pressure from the paramilitaries.
If the paramilitary produces a document which he pretends is prescribed—we must remember that at some polling stations there will be no polling agent and the only people in the polling station apart from the staff might be the police—the police will not be alerted to the fact that


the abuse is going on. If the presiding officer had to display the document to satisfy everyone in the polling station that a prescribed document had been produced, it would immediately eliminate the probability of any abuse.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There was only one matter that was not directly dealt with by amendment but which was referred to in Committee. Unfortunately, the Minister was not present at the time. It relates to the list of prescribed documents. It was suggested that there are those who may fear to use a British passport or a passport of the Republic of Ireland in certain areas, or who may be embarrassed to use a benefit book in front of those who know them, or who may not have any prescribed document. Will the Minister consider adding to the list of prescribed documents a purpose-made identity card, issued through the electoral office, which the individual may voluntarily produce? Everyone would not be required to have it, but it may be more satisfactory for some people to use a purpose-made document rather than one of the documents that they feel might endanger or embarrass them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to return to the issue of the registrar's certificate. When the Minister considers the list of documents, I hope that he will understand that the certificates are more available to the public in the local registry offices than they are in a clergyman's house, because the public have access to those offices. I have been in the offices and the certificates have been lying around on the shelves. The Minister should think carefully about that. What is more, the certificates that I have seen do not have a stamp. They have the signature of the person who issued them at the bottom. I should like the Minister to consider this carefully because the marriage law in Ireland—we use the old Irish law—is complex and different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Scott: I am sorry to have to issue at least qualified negatives to each of the three points that have been raised. As I have undertaken to introduce an amendment on Report, we will have an opportunity to consider what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said about marriage certificates. I see difficulties, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, with the course that he suggests. I shall certainly consider it, although I am not optimistic that the amendment will incorporate the idea that he has put forward.
I cannot see that it would be possible, in time for the local government elections next year, to go down the road that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) suggests and have some kind of voluntary identity card. We would want to be sure that anything produced for that purpose, even if one agreed to it in practice, would be uniformly available across the Province. I do not think it would be possible to do that in time for the election.
I also have grave doubts about the presiding officer holding up the document. He is the man who has to make the judgment. We shall be giving advice to the chief electoral officer and he will be giving advice to his staff in due course. I shall look at the point, but I should have thought that it would be a case of taking the matter away from the judgment of the presiding officer, and my initial reaction would be to say that the difficulties would be outweighed by any conceivable advantages.

Mr. McCusker: I am not suggesting that it should interfere in any way with the presiding officer's discretion or judgment. It would be demonstrating to all concerned that a prescribed document was being presented. I do not think that he should be involved in any decision making at that stage. He is just saying that he has been given a prescribed document.

Mr. Scott: I stand by what I said, but I shall look at the matter.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 16.

Division No. 30]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hickmet, Richard


Amess, David
Hicks, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Holt, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Home Robertson, John


Arnold, Tom
Hooson, Tom


Ashby, David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bellingham, Henry
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Benyon, William
Howells, Geraint


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Blackburn, John
Hume, John


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Kennedy, Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bright, Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Brinton, Tim
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Knowles, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Lang, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butterfill, John
Lester, Jim


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Major, John


Chope, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clegg, Sir Walter
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Norris, Steven


Conway, Derek
Onslow, Cranley


Coombs, Simon
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dover, Den
Pawsey, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Durant, Tony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Emery, Sir Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Evennett, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Favell, Anthony
Rowe, Andrew


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Fletcher, Alexander
Scott, Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forth, Eric
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fox, Marcus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Freeman, Roger
Silvester, Fred


Gale, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galley, Roy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond
Spence, John


Gregory, Conal
Spencer, Derek


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stern, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Harris, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Harvey, Robert
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Haselhurst, Alan
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hayward, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thurnham, Peter


Heddle, John
Tracey, Richard






Twinn, Dr Ian
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Whitfield, John


Waddinglon, David
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Woodcock, Michael


Walker, Bill (T'side N)



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Wardle, C, (Bexhill)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Watson, John



NOES


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Parry, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Knowles, Michael
Robinson, P. (Batfast E)


Loyden, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


McCusker, Harold
Smyth, Rev W. M, (Belfast S)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. William Ross and


Nicholson, J.
Mr. Cecil Walker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

OFFENCES RELATING TO PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 5, after 'of', insert
'or the day next preceding'
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those trying to personate on a massive scale and collecting a large number of documents of one kind or another in advance may be challenged. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) put down a similar amendment, which was not selected, but I believe that the intention is met rather more neatly in our amendment which refers to "the day next preceding"—in other words, the day before.
There is little point in restricting and making illegal the possession of such documents only on polling day. Past experience has shown that for the documents to be in the possession of the individuals concerned preparations have to be made some time ahead. If people are allowed to go around freely stockpiling documents and making their preparations we shall be ensuring that they are indeed capable of carrying out their intentions on the day. If the amendment is accepted and that is made illegal, the work of the wicked will be very much more difficult. For that reason, we hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I tabled an amendment similar in effect to the amendment under discussion. This is a very important matter. The day before the election seems likely to be the time when the machinery of personation would be set up. It would therefore be very important that the police should be able to go into the headquarters on that day and deal with the matter. It could even be argued that they should have that right two or three days before the election. How far does one go? The proposition in the amendment is a reasonable one, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There is one further point that the Minister might consider. I believe that it has been established that the early hours of the poll are often the

favourite hours for the purposes of vote-stealing, being a time when the polling agents may not be on the job and the vote-stealers may have relative privacy and immunity for doing their fell work. If there is to be vote-stealing at 7 o'clock in the morning, it stands to reason that the materials for perpetrating it must have been accumulated overnight. That is an additional reason for accepting the amendment

Mr. Scott: The Bill as drafted makes it clear that the offence can be committed only on polling day. The intention of the Government in drafting the Bill in that way was to make quite sure that the accumulation of the documents was for the purposes of personation. It was thought that it might be difficult to establish that fact before the court if the offence ran beyond polling day. On polling day, especially if the documents were held in close proximity to a polling station, there would not be much doubt that they had been assembled for the purpose of personation.
Another factor helped to determine the Government's approach to the provision. We wanted to strike the right balance between protecting the liberty of the individual and the need for the community as a whole to be protected against the evil of personation. To suggest that the police should have the powers a fortnight before polling day would have been to go too wide. However, the amendment does not do so. I have listened with great care to the points made—especially the point made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about the fact that this work is often done in the early hours of polling day. The amendment could very well be useful to the police and to all those who wish to eradicate the evil of personation from the electoral process in Northern Ireland without unacceptably affecting the rights of the citizen. l urge the Committee to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McCusker: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 7, leave out
'to which this section applies'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. McCusker: Subsections (1) and (2) define the new offence which is now to exist, not only on polling day but, thank goodness, on the day before. I believe, however, that the offence is too narrowly defined. Subsection (2) seems to mean that the offence is committed only if the person has in his or her possession one of the five prescribed documents described earlier on. I am sure that that will be sufficient to prove that the person is guilty of or is likely to commit the offence, but there are other documents which will be equally important to anyone trying to organise vote-stealing on a massive scale.
10.45 pm
I have already referred to the importance of the poll card, which could be used more fully in the scheme of things. The clearest sign that massive personation was about to take place would be the apprehension of someone on the day before polling day or on polling day in possession of many polling cards. The advantage of a polling card to the personator is that it is a vote about which he will not be embarrassed. He is fairly sure that the people whose polling cards he has will not be polling that


day. It would be much easier for large-scale personators to start the day with as many polling cards as can be accumulated. He will poll as early as possible in place of people whose polling cards he does not have, as they will vote later. The holding of a polling card is as good a sign that the offence will be committed as the holding of one of the prescribed documents.
The Minister will recall that, in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election of two years ago, a van with six or eight citizens of the Irish Republic was stopped. Some came from as far away as County Cork and had a large bundle of polling cards. As they were doing a grand tour of polling stations in that constituency it was clear that they were using those cards. Greater discretion should be given to the police to determine what document is a sign of personation. Polling cards should be included. We are talking of people stealing 10,000 or 20,000 votes.
If the offence is to be committed by both sides of the political divide on a military scale, some records have to be gathered and produced. Polling cards are a fair sign of vote stealing, but so are lists of the dead, lists of those who are training as nurses in the Royal Victoria hospital and lists of people who are on holiday. Someone who is personating systematically is bound to have other documents that indicate a planned campaign. We cannot specify what those documents might be, but they could include polling cards and a well-marked register. Such documentation might not be conclusive proof on its own but, combined with other evidence that might emerge as a result of police investigations, it probably would be. We want to break out of the restrictions of the list of prescribed documents.

Mr. Scott: I must advise the Committee that we are on delicate ground. We have to strike a fine balance between giving powers to the police which might unduly affect the rights of citizens. We have made a conscious decision that the way in which to check personation is to insist on the production of one of a list of documents. If earlier amendments, which would have allowed other documents to be taken into account, had been accepted, this one might have fitted in better. The Committee has rejected that approach and insisted that acquisition of a ballot paper depends on presentation of a prescribed document. In terms of not allowing the powers of the police to go too wide and protecting the rights of the individual and in terms of trying to enhance the chances of successful prosecution, it is best to stick to the narrow list of documents. We shall have to monitor this in the context of the elections in May next year and stick to the list of prescribed documents. We would be on very dangerous ground if we went wider than that for this first attempt, and I advise the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was glad to hear the Minister say that during the elections in May an eye would be kept on the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker). I assure the Minister that the intention of the amendment was in no way to go back on the question of what ought to be the range of prescribed documents. But I equally suggest that he should take seriously the consequences of the institution of the poll card in areas where a serious attempt at vote-stealing on

a substantial scale is being made. Even in areas where that is not the case, one often has a shiver down the back on noticing the number of poll cards which are lying about.
It is a common experience of those in an election campaign to be unhappy enough to come across poll cards just lying around, or cards which do not relate to the persons who produced them and who said, "These came through the letter box the other day", or, "My neighbour got these. I do not know what she will do with them. What do you think she ought to do with them?" There is nothing commoner than that experience, and at best the poll card is a two-edged weapon in relation to the integrity of the electoral process.
It was introduced with the intention of superseding the efforts which parties and their organisations could make at an election to alert selected electors to the necessity of going to the poll and how and when to do so. But, as often happens when we attempt to spoon feed and mollycoddle the electors, we find that we have created something to which unsuspected disadvantage is attached. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann was right when he said that those who organised this operation would think themselves exceedingly fortunate and well on the way if they could make a handy collection of poll cards in the relevant ward.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that particular attention is paid to the appearance and role of the poll card in any attempts at personation and vote-stealing which may take place in the forthcoming elections.

Mr. Scott: I can give that undertaking. We must understand that in May we will be in a situation completely different from that which existed in previous elections. Had we not decided to have a list of prescribed documents but had sought to counter personation, we might well have wanted to go down that road. We now have this new scheme, and we are right to test that.

Amendment negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 23.

Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I tabled this amendment in a spirit of inquiry to probe the matters about which I expressed some anxiety on Second Reading. However, I would not like it to be misunderstood.
Of course we appreciate that the power of arrest is the cutting edge of the Bill, and we have no wish to remove it. I expressed our reservations at an earlier stage today, and the Committee will not be dismayed to hear that I do not propose to move the amendment.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
'(d) within the polling station inspect (in addition to presiding officer and clerk) the prescribed document before or after the ballot paper is delivered to the voter.'.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), I could say that this amendment is tabled in a spirit of inquiry, because I seek clarification from the Minister on whether what appears to be implicit in the Bill is fact.
Subsection (3) states:
If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has possession of a document in contravention of subsection (1), the constable may
take action within a series of possibilities. It is essential that the constable is able to perform part of the process if


the Bill is to have any degree the effect that we all hope for it. However, there are many who suspect that it will not have that effect.
The reality of life in Northern Ireland is that the presiding officer and the clerks in the polling station often live in areas from which the gunmen come and to which they go. The threat of the gun overshadows many a presiding officer and clerk. When a person has presented himself with a document—it may be a prescribed document—and the presiding officer has not been satisfied that that person was on the electoral register, he has often, at least in the past, been afraid to take action. It is suggested that if he, the clerk or the personation agents for the political parties are afraid to involve the police, there should be an automatic right for the constable to require to see the document before or after a ballot paper has been produced.
The police may be alerted to some of the individuals who would be taking part in personation. However, it would be a deterrent factor if personators could be pretty sure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would not be afraid to challenge them. That might cause them to think twice before entering the polling station to personate, especially with the penalties that are envisaged in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the procedure. How much a part of the procedure in the polling station will the constable be? Is he to play a passive role? Will he move only when the presiding officer or personation agents of the parties indicate that he should? Does the Minister envisage that the constable will challenge those whom he believes are not genuine in putting forward a prescribed document in exchange for a ballot paper?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has expressed the understandable concern that it would be difficult for a constable on duty in a polling station to determine whether someone was a personator unless he had the power to inspect the prescribed document which the voter had produced to a presiding officer to obtain a ballot paper.
The Committee will understand the Government's concern, which is reflected in the careful drafting of clause 3, that the powers given to constables to deal with the new offence should be tightly drawn to avoid the police becoming involved in the electoral process more than is absolutely necessary to prevent personation. I do not believe that the Committee would wish to give the police a general power to inspect prescribed documents whether or not the constable had reasonable grounds for suspicion. Nor would the RUC wish to have such a power, which would be only a step away from insisting that all voters must submit to a police inspection of their prescribed documents before applying for a ballot paper. That would be repressive and alien to the free electoral system that applies in the United Kingdom. It would lead inevitably to allegations of police harassment and partiality.
It is my firm opinion that subsection (3) gives the police sufficient powers to achieve our objectives. It restricts a constable to acting only on reasonable grounds of suspicion. When he acts on those grounds, his powers to inspect the voter's prescribed document is implicit in subsection (3)(c). To include the amendment would cast doubt on whether the power to inspect documents applied outside polling stations. I can assure the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the RUC was closely consulted over the

new powers available to it in the Bill, and is satisfied that they are sufficient and that we do not need to cast the net any wider.
I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

11 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Those of us who studied the Bill from the time of its publication were under the impression at first that the teeth were in clause 1 and that clause 3 was, in some sense, subsidiary to clause 1. Further study and debate has disclosed the importance of clause 3 so that we probably regard it as the most important and effective clause of the Bill.
As the Minister has explained on a number of occasions, the device—whatever criticism has been made of it and however we would have wished it to be qualified—of the prescribed document does, for the first time, give the constable on duty in the polling station prima facie reason for suspicion of an offence of personation having been committed or attempted, and the document would form the evidence upon which that suspicion would be based. We are, therefore, if we take it seriously, envisaging that the police powers in the clause are very much the effective back-up to the provisions in the earlier part of the Bill. It is on that assumption that I want to put a proposition to the Minister. It is not one that can be expressed in the terms of the Bill, but it is one to which it would be useful if he could offer some form of assent.
I ask the Minister to envisage the circumstances, not in the early hours of the poll to which we referred earlier, but towards the end of the poll—perhaps between half-past 9 and 10 o'clock at night on the polling day of a general election for this House. Let us suppose that that period has been selected for a substantial operation involving the stealing of votes. What will happen is that during that period, one hopes, a series of documents will be tendered and held by the presiding officer because of a reasonable doubt that they were not tendered by the electors specified on the electoral roll.
If one has understood the meaning and purport of the clause, the fact in itself of a presiding officer rejecting a tendered document creates a prima facie assumption that the person who tendered that document meant no good and was trying to use that document for the purpose of personation or vote-stealing.
When the first such instance occurs, it may well be that the member of the RUC on duty will act on his judgment, and having searched and found the document on the person will proceed as set out in the clause. What happens when that is repeated a second, third and fourth time, perhaps within as many minutes—not in the middle of the day, but when all the pressures are on and with genuine electors belatedly seeking the opportunity to cast what may be the vital votes in their constituencies?
Surely it will be necessary for there to be available a back-up of police so that we shall not fail to utilise this clause for lack of police manpower available in the event of a repetition of a whole series of prima facie offences. We are therefore asking the Government to show that they


will put their boot where their voice is, and ensure that in those areas, which are not difficult to define, where such practices are likely to occur, there will be an adequate availability of police, not necessarily in the polling station but readily available, especially during hours of pressure, to make a reality of the powers contained in the clause. It would be encouraging and helpful if the Minister would say something on that subject.

Mr. Scott: I am happy to respond in supporting the motion that the Committee should approve the clause. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, it provides the teeth for the entire Bill. I have already mentioned that there have been consultations with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is satisfied that it has sufficient powers. I well understand that there is a second leg to that, which is that on the day it should have sufficient resources to fulfil its obligations. I am sure that in the consultations that the chief electoral officer always has with the RUC before an election, it will be impressed on the RUC, especially since this is the first time that we shall be on this territory, that we look to it to ensure that the new law is rigorously enforced. It is an operational matter, and I shall make sure that it is drawn to the chief constable's attention.

Mr. William Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks, but we should perhaps consider more carefully what the police will have to do, and how many policemen will be needed to do it.
There will be a large number of polling stations and polling rooms and boxes on election day. The number is not the same for all elections. I am considering primarily the position that would prevail at a parliamentary election. It will not be simple in the May election because there will be proportional representation. There will be an abnormal number of boxes and, therefore, many more policemen will be needed to cover it.
If Sinn Fein and its fellow travellers in the Irish Republican Army set out to cause the maximum trouble on election day, they will not confine their activities to polling stations in areas where they are active, but incidents of a terrorist nature will occur in other parts of the Province. That will draw members of the security forces, which will inevitably include many policemen, to those other duties. That could be done with the intention of reducing the number of men available for polling station duties.
It is apparent to all in Northern Ireland that not all parts of the country will be under threat of personation. It will be restricted to a small number of areas. If the police are to be seen as even-handed, they must have an adequate presence in every polling station. I see difficulties not at small rural polling stations but at large polling stations with large numbers of boxes and rooms. They will need two or three policemen in a room with a back-up force, either in the building or immediately outside it, and somewhere to hold individuals who are arrested. It will not be possible to bung them into a police car and cart them off to a police station. If the IRA and Sinn Fein plan personation on a large scale, they will take other precautions to make the life of the police as difficult as possible. We are not talking about only a few men.
Can the Minister tell us how many boxes will be needed in next May's elections, bearing in mind the fact that they

are not only proportional representation elections, but that they will be much slower than usual? The number of boxes may have to be increased, which is why I do not agree with the proposed extra cost. Could he also tell us how many extra policemen will be needed to carry out the job? We shall need many more than most people believe. As we must expect Sinn Fein to try to bypass the legislation in every way possible, we can expect the maximum effort from its representatives, which must be matched with the maximum effort of the police to stop them getting away with it.

Mr. Scott: It is not for me to consider the details of the number of boxes required. That is a matter on which the chief electoral officer assured us that the financial provision made in the Bill is sufficient to implement the legislation. For the first time, the police will have the powers that they need to deal with the blatant personation that has characterised elections in some parts of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the chief constable will make the necessary arrangements to deal with it, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of the chief constable.
It is slightly difficult to believe that an operation at 9.30 am that led to the arrest of many of those people would be persisted with, bearing in mind the penalties to which those who indulge in personation are liable under the Bill. I do not rule it out, but it is unlikely that they would persist. This is new territory. The police have those powers, and I am sure that they will be determined to use them properly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Question that you have just proposed to the Committee, Mr. Dean, is the only opportunity, in the light of the rules of order and the selection of amendments, which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have to record in Committee our views on the fact that the legislation will apply to only one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland.
An interesting development—if that is not too complimentary a word—can be traced in the thinking of the Government on this subject. Earlier the Minister recalled the tentative propositions that were put to the parties in Northern Ireland in April 1982 on the subject of the prevention of personation. During a debate on an earlier amendment I quoted at length the response of the Official Unionist party to the proposal of the mandatory provision of documents. On 10 March 1983, the then Secretary of State returned to the subject, and it is interesting to note that his attitude then was different from what it had tentatively been in 1982, and has finally become in the terms of the Bill. He wrote then—and I shall not trouble the Committee with more than the essential quotations:
There are two broad fronts on which this abuse…can be tackled.


The first front was that laid out in the Bill whose consideration in Committee we are just concluding, and I shall return in a moment to what the then Secretary of State said about that.
11.15 pm
The second approach was that we should use the present legislation. The words of the Secretary of State were
to concentrate on what more can be done within existing legislation.
I want to draw attention to the reasons why, at that time in May 1983, the Secretary of State preferred the latter course of seeing what could be done with the present legislation. It was because he considered that the step of making the production of documents a condition for voting in Northern Ireland would involve
a major change in the way in which elections are conducted, and if it were introduced for Northern Ireland alone, there would be a significant difference between procedures in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the same election.
It is pleasant in retrospect to be able to attribute to the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) a sensitivity to the susceptibilities of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the Northern Ireland people which was not always strongly marked during his tenure of office. I hope that it may come to his attention that this golden sentence from his letter of 10 March 1983 has been exhumed and displayed in this debate to his credit. Quite evidently the Secretary of State did not consider that it was desirable that there should be a significant difference between procedures in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the same election. Nor do my right hon. and hon. Friends and I, nor does anyone in Northern Ireland think it desirable that there should be a significant difference between procedures in the same election in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.
But the word "procedures" in that sentence is an understatement of the difference which the Bill creates. I do not think that it can be disputed that the Bill is appending to the right to vote a condition which will be applicable only in one part of the United Kingdom if the legislation is passed for Northern Ireland.
On the face of it, it is unconscionable that the right to vote should be qualified in one part of the kingdom only. The qualification is an effective restriction of the right of the exercise of the franchise. We are not talking about measures to prevent or to apprehend persons who might be breaking the law. We are talking about a condition which will be binding upon everyone and which must be fulfilled before he can vote. We are saying that that condition shall be applied only to that part of the electorate which is situated in Northern Ireland.
Even if the circumstances in Northern Ireland in this respect were unique—which they are not—it would still be an extraordinary step for the House to take to qualify the franchise in one part of the kingdom and not in the rest. After all, that is what is happening within Northern Ireland itself. The franchise is being qualified in nine tenths of the Province where the Bill is not required for the effective policing of the electoral process. For the sake of the electoral process in one tenth of the Province a new qualification and limitation upon the right to vote is being imposed on the rest of the Province.
It is apparently thought to be right that to deal with the problems of a minority of the area the same restrictions should be imposed upon the population of the whole of the area, that is, the whole of the Province. If the House was

anxious about the dangers anywhere in the kingdom of widespread personation and vote stealing, rather than break the fundamental principle of an elected assembly such as this that all its Members are elected by electors who have the same franchise and the same opportunity to exercise it, I should have thought that the House would say that this restriction should be imposed upon the whole of the kingdom.
If we are to change the electoral law, let us change it for everyone. No doubt it will not be required in a large part of the kingdom, but nevertheless we shall have maintained the equitable treatment that is the essence of an elected assembly, which ultimately makes this place in which we are all equals, one to the other, because we have all emerged from exactly the same electoral processes in our part of the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland is, even now, not unique in this respect. There are parts of the mainland where already the circumstances are such that the identification of voters and the substitution of one voter for another is extraordinarily difficult to prevent. Exactly the same arguments for imposing the precondition of presenting a colourable document could be urged as have been urged for the justification of the Bill. I am not intending at any length to stand in the way of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) or of other hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom who may tender evidence to show that the case of Ulster is not: unique. However, if the case of Ulster in not unique, the argument in favour of imposing this restriction on Ulster only is correspondingly weak, and the outrage that it has done to our constitutional principle is correspondingly serious.
I am sure that it would not have been expected that hon. Members returned to represent their constituencies in Northern Ireland, speaking for the electorate of Northern Ireland, would passively accept this discrimination against the Province that they have the honour to represent. 'We shall vote against this clause being added to the Bill as being the only means at this stage of the Bill by which we can place on record our sense of outrage at what is being done and at the inadequate justification for what is itself unconstitutionally untenable.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I find myself in something of a dilemma because we are called a United Kingdom, but we do not seem to be supporting the idea of one united voting system. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has already said, there are some concerns in Leicester, East, and in the city of Leicester. I agree with him that the Bill will stop cheating and it will stop people voting more than once, but I regret that clause 7 is defective because it is restricted to Northern Ireland. If it were widened, and made to incorporate the rest of the United Kingdom, it would be a far more easy Bill to understand and accept.
I should not have to give examples of what I describe as voting early, voting often, which occur in other parts of the United Kingdom. What happens is not necessarily vote-stealing, but polling cards are collected and distributed to another party's headquarters. People go in to vote at least twice. Another example is when the turnout in one polling box amounted to 96 per cent., which is obviously scandalous and unbelievable. I feel that I am not the only hon. Member who can say with certainty that personation occurs.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves why Northern Ireland should be treated any differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) had a majority of seven. The result could have been the other way. We just do not know how the voting went there. In Northern Ireland there are certain constituencies with very small majorities. Yet again, we do not know whether the democratic process has been interfered with in those cases by the use of personation. While the Bill is acceptable in that it aims at correcting the democratic process so as to treat people more fairly, and attempts to stop other people from taking advantage of presiding officers and polling agents, it is defective, no matter how one looks at it. I regret that we cannot have a Bill for the rest of the United Kingdom. We must ask ourselves whether the abnormally high turn-outs in Belfast constituencies should worry us. We should ask ourselves also about the position in the United Kingdom.
With great regret, I find myself in a dilemma. I have to support clause 7, but I can do so only to a limited extent because I hope for more to come. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will take account of this debate and the Committee's views so that it will be possible to bring forward a Bill on behalf of the rest of the United Kingdom enabling constitutionally elected Members of Parliament to be elected fairly without the need for any kind of double voting.

Mr. Scott: I fully understand the depth of feeling of the Official Unionist party about this matter. Those right hon. and hon. Members feel strongly that a Bill which touches the franchise to this extent should apply to only one part of the United Kingdom. I respect that point of principle, but the fact is that the Bill was brought before Parliament to deal with a specific threat to the electoral process in Northern Ireland. Despite the energetic and not unpersuasive remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I have to repeat what I said on Second Reading: the Government have no evidence that widespread personation is practised in Great Britain. Unlike Northern Ireland, there have been no formal representations—

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: Not at this moment.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Scott: I shall give way in a moment. I always give way, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I should like to be able to complete this point.
We do not have evidence that personation is practised to a significant extent here. We have had representations from all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland about the level of personation, but no such representations from this side of the water.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman used two particular words—"widespread" and "significant" personation. Do the Government have any evidence that there is personation on a small scale or in relatively small areas such as a single polling station or polling box, as referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels)?

Mr. Scott: I suspect that if the personation had reached a serious dimension, so that it posed a threat to the integrity of the electoral system, the parties here would have made representations to the Government. They have not done so, and therefore I do not believe that the situation exists. Certainly, it does not exist on this side of the water where there are no paramilitary groups organising in a dedicated way on a large scale the personation that we have witnessed in recent elections in the Province. I do not believe, therefore, that there is a case for the extension of the Bill to Great Britain. The Government sincerely regret that it is necessary in a matter as important as the democratic process to differentiate between the treatment of citizens in Northern Ireland and the treatment of those in Great Britain.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) mentioned in particular the change of heart between the original letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) and the Government's final decision. The general election of 1983 occurred during that process, and we saw the most determined, sustained and widespread organisation of personation in Northern Ireland. That led us to believe that the powers under existing legislation were not sufficient and that we would have to seek to deal with that dangerous position by legislation.
It is true that electoral arrangements in Northern Ireland, even in parliamentary terms, differ from the arrangements in Great Britain—residential qualifications is the example that springs readily to mind. It is a question of balance as to which is the less desirable—to treat those in Northern Ireland differently from those in Great Britain because of the depth and seriousness of the threat to the electoral system there—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of fact, there is no difference in the electoral qualifications for elections to this House between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom.

Mr. Scott: In Great Britain a person has to be resident on the qualifying date. In Northern Ireland a person has to be resident on the qualifying date and for three months before. There is that difference in the qualifications for parliamentary elections.
The question is whether the lesser of the two evils is to treat Northern Ireland differently or to allow an evil to disrupt and subvert the democratic process in Northern Ireland. We are determined to prevent the latter. I therefore urge the Committee to vote for the retention of clause 7.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 13.

Division No. 31]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brinton, Tim


Ashby, David
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruce, Malcolm


Bellingham, Henry
Bruinvels, Peter


Benyon, William
Budgen, Nick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Burt, Alistair


Blackburn, John
Butterfill, John


Bottomley, Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Chapman, Sydney


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Chope, Christopher






Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lester, Jim


Conway, Derek
Lyell, Nicholas


Coombs, Simon
Major, John


Couchman, James
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dover, Den
Moynihan, Hon C.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Newton, Tony


Durant, Tony
Norris, Steven


Emery, Sir Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Evennett, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fallon. Michael
Pawsey, James


Favell, Anthony
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fletcher, Alexander
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forth, Eric
Rowe, Andrew


Fox, Marcus
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Freeman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gale, Roger
Scott, Nicholas


Galley, Roy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gregory, Conal
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Spencer, Derek


Harris, David
Stern, Michael


Harvey, Robert
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Hayes, J.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Heddle, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hickmet, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Holt, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Hooson, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Walden, George


Howells, Geraint
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Wallace, James


Hume, John
Waller, Gary


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Warren, Kenneth


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Watson, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Whitfield, John


Knowles, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Lang, Ian



Latham, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Kilfedder, James A.
Skinner, Dennis


McCusker, Harold
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. A. Cecil Walker and


Nicholson, J.
Mr. William Ross.


Paisley, Rev Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3

OFFICIAL POLL CARDS

The following shall be inserted after Rule 28(3)(c)—
(d) the documents which the elector may be required to produce to the presiding officer at the polling station under the terms of this Act.".'. — [Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Committee will already be aware of the foreboding which is felt by right hon and hon. Members on this Bench as to the number of electors at a future election in Northern Ireland who will arrive at the polling station innocent of the fact that a new qualification and condition has been attached to their right to exercise the franchise, and that if they do so arrive, they will depart not merely disgruntled but in many cases determined, having thus been, as they will see it, insulted, not to cast their vote, certainly at that election, whereby undoubtedly the accuracy of the electoral process would be damaged.
It is therefore, if we are to have this legislation, essential that as far as possible every person likely to exercise his vote in person, because of course it is only voting in person or by proxy with which the Bill has been concerned, is aware before he goes to the polling station of the new requirement which has been attached to the casting of his vote.
There is one form of communication, not indeed foolproof, not indeed failsafe, but at any rate of very general application, which can usefully be applied for that purpose in addition to advertisements in the newspapers. Advertisements in the newspapers other than those advertising the respective merits of the different political parties—merely drily announcing legal particulars about the forthcoming elections—are not the favourite reading of those who buy the newspapers. It cannot, therefore, be taken for granted that notices inserted in the newspapers, however accurate, as to the new conditions to be imposed upon voting, will come to the attention of all likely to want to vote in person, particularly the elderly, who, as is the habit with the elderly, think that having done it so often, they know how it is done.
We ought therefore not to despise the poll card as a means of communication between the electoral authorities and the electorate. The new clause, although its precise terms are related to earlier amendments, invites the Government to consider making it an actual duty for the poll card to carry—I was going to say "upon the face of it", but I suspect that it would be done upon the back of it—a notice of the documents with a firm indication that at least one of them will be required as a condition of voting.
I know that the Minister is anxious to ensure the best possible success for the operation of the legislation. It will fail miserably if a substantial number of electors are unaware of its essential provisions on the next polling day. I hope, therefore, that he will empower himself to use this valuable means, perhaps the best available means, of communication with electors—the poll card—to convey that information.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I remind the Minister that when brought this matter to his attention previously he said that he would consider it. I trust that he will be able to respond today. It is only right that the poll card received by the elector should make clear not only where he has to 'vote but that he must bring with him one or other of the prescribed documents. I trust that the Minister will take that reasonable request on board.

Mr. Scott: I am happy to be able to end this Committee stage on a note of agreement and harmony, although not


in precisely the way suggested by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I assure the Committee that the Government totally share the aim of giving the widest possible publicity to the requirement for voters to bring one of the prescribed documents to the polling station. I will arrange through regulations for it to be made necessary for that information to be included on the polling cards.
Rule 28(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states that
The official poll card shall be in the prescibed form".
I shall ensure that the aim of the new clause is met by prescription in regulations.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Road Traffic, Transport and Roads)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Road Traffic, Transport and Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
The order seeks to bring our basic legislation up to date through amendments which have already been put into effect in Great Britain.
Article 3 will enable the Department of the Environment to conduct experimental traffic schemes. These will last initially for six months but may be extended to a maximum of 18 months, after which the experiment must either be made permanent or abandoned. This will give us more flexibility in testing solutions to road traffic problems. At present, changes can be introduced only after a somewhat time-consuming statutory process. As hon. Members will know, in road traffic management, as in other areas of life, theory and practice often differ. It will therefore be to the benefit of all road users if the Department, as road authority, can quickly make amendments to traffic control measures to ensure that the most efficient and cost-effective measures are adopted.
Article 4 provides new powers to deal with a common source of complaint in the Province—the parking of heavy commercial vehicles on footways where they not only cause considerable damage to the surface and to underground services, but constitute a danger and inconvenience to pedestrians, especially the blind. There will be a general prohibition on the parking of such vehicles on verges, footways and the land between two carriageways with exemptions in certain instances such as loading or unloading where the operation could not otherwise be carried out.
The provisions of articles 5, 6 and 8 seek to strengthen the hand of the Department and the RUC in dealing with goods vehicles. Powers are sought to prohibit the driving of overloaded goods vehicles, to require goods vehicles to proceed to a place not more than five miles away for the purpose of being inspected—at present the distance is one mile—and to facilitate the use of dynamic axle weighbridges.
Article 7 places Ulsterbus Ltd. and Citybus Ltd. on a similar footing to publicly-owned bus undertakings in Britain by exempting them from the requirement to have third party insurance cover as required under the 1981 road traffic order. In effect the companies will carry their own insurance, subject to such underwriting arrangements as they deem necessary.
The provisions affecting transport also touch on vehicle licensing and railway issues. Article 11 is of special significance. It will enable the Department to attach to a road freight vehicle licence conditions relating to its parking. This power will be used in conjunction with those in Article 4 to ensure that the parking of goods vehicles in residential areas is kept to a minimum. It is an environmental as well as a transport provision.
Article 15 makes new provisions with respect to level crossings, and was not in the draft order circulated for consultation and considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I feel that because of the continuing programme of level crossing automation being undertaken


by Northern Ireland Railways Ltd., it is important that Northern Ireland legislation should be brought into line with that in Great Britain as quickly as possible. At present it is not possible for Northern Ireland Railways to automate crossings on private roads, many of which are operated by the road user. With increasing urban development, several crossings of that type now have a considerable volume of traffic, and enhanced safety measures are desirable. The new proposals will allow automatic controls on all roads to be introduced by order made by the Department. We also propose an element of statutory local consultation for all roads, in that Northern Ireland Railways will be obliged to refer its proposals for automation to the district council for the area concerned.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman referred to level crossings on what he called private roads. When does he expect to receive the report of the inquiry that has been established by Northern Ireland Railways into what it calls accommodation crossings, which I believe are what the Minister called crossings on private roads?

Mr. Patten: I hope that I shall have a chance to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question before the end of the debate.
Any representations which the council wishes to make—I return to the matter of consultation—must be taken into account by the Department when it decides whether or not to make the order.
This important proposal seeks to balance, as it must, the needs of railway safety with the need for a more cost-effective railway system. Hon. Members may appreciate a clearer understanding of the considerations that will apply when a level crossing is brought forward for automation. The proposal is subject to extensive consultation involving the railway company, the RUC traffic division and the Department's roads and road safety officer services. The Department will make the appropriate order only when it is satisfied that all the parties are in agreement both on the principle of the automation and on its detailed operational requirements.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister remind the House to what parliamentary procedure, if any, the order would be subject in present circumstances?

Mr. Patten: As I recall, the order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We seek in the order to bring the situation into line with that in Great Britain, but I will return in more detail to the right hon. Gentleman's point.
The automatic crossing will then be installed to the specification approved by the Department of Transport in Great Britain and inspected by that Department's railway inspectorate prior to coming in operation.
Article 16 gives the railway company the power to construct railways and to allow the transport holding company compulsorily to acquire land to facilitate such construction. The power is sought as a desirable element in general transport planning.
I shall deal finally with the roads part of the order. I do not need to tell right hon. and hon. Members from the Province what road humps are, as they have been used extensively as a security measure. Article 18 proposes a new use for such humps as a speed control measure. The Department will be given the power to construct humps on

roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or less. Humps are therefore to be used on urban roads, especially those which are designed to serve residential areas only and which have become used as through routes by traffic. The installation of humps with the consequent reduction of speed should discourage unnecessary through traffic and offer an important road safety element.
This is a wide-ranging order which embraces a wealth of detail and I trust that., even at this late hour, my exposition has proved of passing interest.

Mr. Peter Archer: It is a convention of the House that, immediately a Minister has resumed his seat, the spokesman for the official Opposition should rise to express his party's reaction to the Government's proposals. Normally that is a sensible way in which to proceed, but when we are considering a measure that is not controversial in a party sense I wonder whether it might not sometimes be better to see first whether any hon. Member wishes to raise a fundamental objection so that the debate is begun by formulating the principal issues. I have no such issue to raise.
If there is any one theme running through the order I fail to discern it. It is a collection of measures, each of which seems modest but worthy, for facilitating transport in the Province. We are grateful to the Minister for the clear but brief way in which he described them. I wish to refer only to article 16 which is headed, "Power to construct railways." I hope that the Government have it in mind to use these powers, as they are asking for them, and I hope that one of the earliest uses they make of them is to proceed with the rail link between York road and Central station, Belfast, about which I wrote to the Minister last February. He will recollect the consultants' report on the Belfast urban area plan and the public inquiry that followed. The inspector recommended provision of the link saying that it would increase the overall efficiency of the rail network.
There was wide public support for the link. It seems generally to be accepted that it would make an important contribution to the complete transport system, yet earlier this year the Minister said that consideration would be delayed for, apparently, three years. That was a deep disappointment to many people, to employees of the railways and to potential 'passengers. If the Minister can say anything to offer hope of an improvement on that time schedule, we shall regard that as a bonus.
It would be illogical on our part to deny the Secretary of State these powers because we thought that he might be too lethargic in exercising them. Beyond that, at this late hour, the House will be pleased to hear that I confine myself to welcoming the order.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is indeed an order which covers a wide number of subjects and on some of them I hope that I can induce the Minister to expatiate rather more than he did in presenting the order. I do not intend to refer to more than a few of them.
I should like to mention humps and the experimental traffic control schemes that include them. We have the benefit in the order of a definition of the word "hump." A
'road hump' means an artificial hump in or on the surface of the road which is designed to control the speed of vehicles".
As the Minister said, we are familiar with this device for purposes of security. In Newry—I apologise, as I am


being betrayed into trespassing into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson), not entirely having got over no longer representing Newry. If my hon. Friend will permit me to say so, there are humps in the road approach to Newry which could well be reconsidered and thought to be fit for withdrawal, having originated in a security provision.
One seriously wonders what the potential scope is for series of humps in residential roads. I hope that the experimental period, and its results, will be severely considered before schemes are made permanent, as the apparently good idea of a road hump on many private roads seems to have severe limitations if it is to be applied to public roads, even in residential areas.
Article 4 deals with the
Parking of heavy commercial vehicles".
I can only agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that, if we could eliminate the parking of commercial vehicles on verges, many parts of Northern Ireland would be happier places and many roads would be more sightly. But I warn the Minister that it will not be sufficient for this article to become law. He will have to ensure that this provision is enforced and policed. It is all too easy for commercial vehicles to use a road verge relatively briefly and to leave it in a condition which is a horrible offence to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and for that offence to be repeated many times until it becomes virtually habitual and yet for no particular offence to have been identified when it was committed. I hope the Minister will understand that the provisions of article 4 call for very special police attention and vigilance in enforcement.
I stray again into the same prohibitive reminiscences. On the Minister's visits to Newry, which I know are not infrequent, he may recall that on his way into the town he passes on the right hand side what appear to be a series of monumental little lighthouses along the verge of the road. Eventually these were found to be the only remedy for the harassed inhabitants of the houses on that side of the Banbridge-Newry road against the incessant parking of commercial vehicles, which had reduced the verges to a slough. Legal provision is fine, but it will be inefficacious unless it is severely policed. I hope the Minister will be able to communicate from this House a wish that the vigilance exercised when this order comes into force should be specially acute.
Article 10 deals with the
Licensing of public service vehicles".
Paragraph 2 refers to
public service vehicles…while making journeys to or from places outside Northern Ireland
if they are registered in Northern Ireland and vice versa.
If I have not mistaken the nature of these road service licences, I wonder how this provision accords with the Government's intention to remove from road services the straitjacket in which they have hitherto been confined by road service licensing. It would be a strange paradox if while freeing from that straitjacket the development of public service vehicle traffic inside Great Britain we introduced or continued powers to restrict and licence it as between the Province of Northern Ireland and the mainland.
It may be that a misunderstanding lies at the root of my comment, but in any case I would be grateful if the

Minister could clear it up and bring it into relationship, if there is a lack of one, with Government policy on the mainland.
Article 15 is directed to level crossings. It is interesting to compare the new section with section 66 of the 1967 Act, which it replaces. The point that will strike a diligent collator of the section in the 1967 Act and the article is the ousting of parliamentary control. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section 66 reads:
The Department may…by order provide that, any statutory provision shall not apply".
It is a general principle that is observed in subordinate legislation that it is objectionable for uncontrolled subordinate legislation to repeal or alter statutes. We do not make statutes in the House, even on railway undertakings and level crossings, to have them repealed by Departments. We have historically been jealous of a suspensory power. In the original legislation that power was properly subject to affirmative procedures in the House. That seems to be the right procedure. If Ministers are to say that a statute which the House has made is no longer to have effect, it should be the House, in effect, which by affirmative resolution says that. I would not regard it as adequate if there were substituted for the former affirmative procedure a negative procedure, bearing in mind how rarely it is possible effectively to assert negative procedure, especially if it should turn out, when the Minister has had further time to examine the matter, that the negative procedure is the sort which, under the conditions of direct rule, turns out to be no procedure at all. We shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say on control by the House of the powers in new section 66 to oust statutory provisions.
The Minister set out the consultations which it is intended shall be gone through with local representative authorities and others before any such alterations are made. However, consultation is no substitute for parliamentary procedure when we are removing safeguards that the House has imposed. I hope that that will be taken to heart more generally as well as in the immediate context of the article.
I refer last—it is a kindred point—to part V of the 1967 Act, which provides for the construction of railways. It was with some surprise that those studying the order found that they were called upon to enact powers to enable railways to be constructed. I take it that the intention is to enable railways to be constructed more conveniently and with less interference by parliamentary and other action than would otherwise be the case. I notice that this part was described by the Minister as a desirable element in the development of transport. It may or it may not be. That depends on how the powers are exercised.
I assume that in this part of the order we are converting the old railways clauses, which used to have to be embodied in the private Acts that authorised the construction of the railways, into a piece of a regulation. If so, we are again removing from the purview of the House in its legislative capacity something which has hitherto lain within that sphere. If that is what has happened, we should be clear about it. At this moment, as I understand it, if it is intended to build a new railway—and I shall put forward a suggestion in a moment—

Mr. Chris Patten: rose—

Mr. Powell: The Minister is about to guess.

Mr. Patten: Warrenpoint.

Mr. Powell: The Minister is right. He is aware of my obsession with Warrenpoint and the coming development in communications between the mainland and the Province. However, before I come to that obsession I invite the Minister to be a little more clear about the legislative consequences of article 5. Are we in fact dispensing with the necessity, for the future, of private Bills being promoted for the creation of railways, and are we in effect depriving the public, by these measures, of any opportunity that they would have had by petition or otherwise to put forward their views when a new railway construction is anticipated?
On second thoughts, I shall not return to Warrenpoint, as I am glad to find it already in the Minister's mind. No doubt he will observe that little major engineering would be necessary to re-extend from Newry — trespassing again — into Warrenpoint in the Down, South constituency the railway that used to serve the port of Warrenpoint which, from next year, will be very much busier than it has been for many a long year, much to the advantage of the hinterland of the Province and, indeed, to the island of Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I know that it may be hard to detect that the Road Traffic, Transport and Roads (Northern Ireland) order has produced any sense of occasion in this House, but I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that for one hon. Member at least there will be a sense of rejoicing at the acceptance of the order. It will be known to me not under the title that I have just mentioned, but rather as the road humps order.
Since I was first elected to this House in 1979, I have attempted to persuade the Minister's predecessor to engage in consultation with his colleagues on the mainland to establish whether they would engage in an experiment with road humps and whether our experience with road humps for security purposes could be extended for reasons of road safety to other roads in the Province.
The road that I asked the Minister to study was one of which he should be well aware. If he looks out of the window of one of the offices at Dundonald for which he has responsibility, he can see it. It is a slip road that runs parallel to the Upper Newtownards road and travellers who use a bank at one end then make swift access to Newtownards road. It is the sort of slip road where a 30 mph limit would be unsuitable. But even that speed would be preferable to the speed of vehicles using the road. I hope that my request will be one of the first that the Minister will have the opportunity to consider when the order is passed, as I suspect it will be.
There are several matters on which I hope the Minister will give us further information. I have noted in schedule 2 the method by which the Department intends to inform the public that a road hump is to be situated at a given location. The method of site notices is one which he intends to use. I believe that he is aware that their use for this purpose may be used against him by those of us who have been arguing for them for another aspect of his responsibility—planning. I know that he is considering some changes in neighbour notification and site notices and also in third party appeals.
Are there criteria set down in the Department as guidelines for where such road humps should be placed? Will it be decided on the basis of accident figures for a given area, or of who can cry the loudest to have one in

his street? Will any restrictions apply to site lines? I imagine that there would be considerable difficulty if the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) were to travel round a corner at about 60 mph in the Bogside and confronted a road hump.
There must be some restrictions. Will the Minister tell us about the regulations which he intends to have laid down in his Department? May I assume in the references to the dimensions and spacing of road humps that the regulations are likely to be similar to those that have been used for security purposes?

Mr. William Ross: At first, when one reads article 4 about the parking of heavy commercial vehicles, it seems that there is a blanket ban. However, as one proceeds, one discovers that there are a number of let-outs for anyone who wishes to park a heavy goods vehicle. I am curious to know why the bans are imposed on heavy goods vehicles only. I know of areas where the grass verge has been churned into a mud bath by lighter vehicles using them as parking areas. Why should we restrict parking for heavy vehicles when cars, tractors and large vans such as those used by telephone engineers also cut up grass verges? Why is the prohibition only on heavy vehicles? Considerable damage can be caused by considerably lighter vehicles, depending on their tyres, and so on.
Article 4(3)(a) states that a vehicle can be parked
for the purpose of loading or unloading.
The condition for parking under article 4(3)(b) is
that the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been parked on the footway or verge.
What happens if in a built-up area an individual discovers, as did a constituent of mine, that he must park on a footpath to unload his vehicle but that there is a double yellow line? The end result of constant police and traffic warden action was that he closed his business and moved elsewhere. Because he received so many fines and was constantly harassed, he could not carry on business. Is there a way round the problem? Does this provision open a window of opportunity to such people?
Article 4(2)(a) states that permission can be given
by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabularly in uniform or a traffic warden.
That would appear to mean that the traffic warden need not be in uniform, although the police officer must. I see no good reason for that. On many occasions a plain clothes police officer might wish to give such permission, but, as the legislation is drafted, he could not. Will the Minister say why that is so, and why an off-duty traffic warden would appear to be able to give such permission? The Minister may believe that this is nit-picking, but it could have practical applications to many people.
Article 6 states:
An inspector of vehicles or a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary may at any time require a person in charge of a stationary goods vehicle on a road to proceed with the vehicle, for the purpose of having it inspected…to any place where an inspection can be suitably carried out not being more than five miles from the place where the requirement is made.
Why is it that only a person in charge of a stationary goods vehicle can be asked to proceed with the vehicle for inspection? Is the Minister saying that if the police or an inspector of vehicles come across a vehicle parked in a layby, while the driver and has helper are having their tea, they can tell the driver to go to the inspection centre,


whereas if the police or the inspector are parked in the layby and they stop a goods vehicle coming along the road they cannot demand that the—

Mr. Chris Patten: It is usually necessary to stop the vehicle in order to talk to the driver.

Mr. Ross: Yes, but the legislation does not say that. It refers to
any person in charge of a stationary goods vehicle.
It does not say that the vehicle must be stopped. My impression of the legislation is that it applies only to parked goods vehicles.
I cannot understand why there is a five-mile limit on the distance within which the vehicle can be compelled to move for inspection. It will mean that the vehicle inspection department of the RUC will try to find stationary vehicles within five miles of the vehicle inspection centres, and nowhere else. At present, it is possible to stop a vehicle and tell the driver to take it to an inspection centre within a specified time. That is a bone of contention of many of my constituents, who say that, although their vehicles have been inspected and passed as fit for the road even the week before—they also have the necessary documentation for the vehicles—they are told to take their vehicles to the inspection centres and have them inspected again.
My constituents whose vehicles have been passed as roadworthy for 12 months ask why they should be forced to return to the inspection centres after such a short time. It should be enough for them to produce the necessary documents, which show that their vehicles passed the inspection recently and were deemed fit for the road. If something is wrong with the vehicles—apart from minor breakages which the drivers or owners would repair within a short time — the inspection process cannot be very good.
Does article 6 give the Northern Ireland authorities power to require vehicles that pass through the Province, from or to Great Britain or the Continent, to undergo a thorough inspection? I hope that that is the way it is to be, because one hears horrific stories of vehicles being used which are not suitable and are not up to the proper standard.
In recent weeks and months there have been a considerable number of orders capable of being prayed against passing through the House on the subject of level crossings on the railway lines between Londonderry and Belfast and Belfast and Dublin, and there are a number of others pending. Until I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), I believed that that type of order would continue in the future. Having listened to him, I am not so sure. If that is not the case, I shall be extremely worried.
Although this order lays a requirement on the railway authorities to inform the council of the area, which may then make representations, if it stops at the council the representations may not be listened to. It may be that the Department, which will be the deciding authority in this case, will simply overrule the wishes of the council and the people in the area. If there was no order coming before the House on which some sort- of parliamentary action could be taken, our constituents would be deprived of the protection that I feel they need.
There are places where the requirements laid down in the order are acceptable. There are many quiet country roads where lights and automatic gates are acceptable, although I personally do not like them. But there are other places where roads are extremely busy, some of them even in towns, and where the proposed regulations are quite unacceptable.
Some time ago I wrote to the Minister about one example of what I mean in Milburn in Coleraine, where the railway line is crossed at a very dangerous location. The line is at the top of a hump-back. On one side there is a post office. On the other side there are the Crown buildings which house several Government Departments, including the unemployment office, the agricultural office and several others. There is also a large primary school close by, and there is a large housing estate surrounding it, with children going to and from the school in fairly large numbers every day and having to cross the railway line, which at present is manned, with gates.
I understand that somewhere in the pipeline there is an order to remove the present equipment and put in automatic equipment. That is quite unacceptable to me and to my constituents in the area. It is one of those areas right in the middle of a town where we must maintain the present high standard of protection and manning. Nothing else is satisfactory in those circumstances because this is a very busy road where there is an enormous number of children during the school term, where many other people travel to and from the Crown buildings and where there is quite a lot of traffic passing in any case. That is perhaps an extreme example of where the gates should be kept, but there are other cases, of busy roads out in the country, or where the level crossing is in a bad position, where it is necessary to maintain a much higher level of protection for the public than that which is possible under the order.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what these changes mean in relation to the representations that we may be making in the House on behalf of our constituents. We want to know what his criteria will be whenever he has to decide whether automatic barriers will be allowed. We want to know about this, and there is no time like the present, before the order for Milburn is printed and distributed.

Mr. James Molyneaux: This order is relevant to the reservations that have been expressed about the legislation concerning railway crossings. We may be correct in assuming that this is another victim of direct rule. Under Stormont rule, presumably, these orders were affirmative and, like all legislation affecting Northern Ireland under direct rule, they have all been down graded one step so that we are now faced with negative orders. This is not very satisfactory, because, unless one is fairly quick on the draw and spots those two little lines of italics, one does not get in within the 40 days.
The Minister spoke about the road humps. In my maiden speech to the Antrim county council 20 years ago I suggested a physical device for the slowing of traffic at dangerous spots. I suggested that the then county surveyor, who is not unknown to the Minister, should examine the Dutch system, in which sections of the road approaching danger spots are replaced with a corrugated device in precast concrete. That has an advantage over the humps, of which we have had all-too frequent experience in Northern Ireland in the past few years. The humps may not be


properly constructed, or an inexperienced or nervous driver, no matter how slowly he may proceed, may take the hump in the wrong way. He may lose his exhaust pipe or break his sump.
That takes me back to an occasion when I was being driven around the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). At that time he had an addiction for what I can only call low flying. He took one of these humps at excessive speed, and when he came out the next morning he found that the sump oil had trickled across the nice concrete parking space. He was held up and missed an entire day's canvassing.
I come back to the practical suggestion. I hope that the use of the word "humps" in the order can be construed in such a way as to allow the use of the other device. It causes the maximum discomfort to any road hog driver. It may damage the suspension, but it cannot do other physical damage to the vehicle, as can the road humps of blessed memory, which are thankfully now being removed from many areas where they were never necessary anyway. I do not expect the Minister to give a definitive answer tonight, but perhaps he will feed that suggestion into the machine and see whether the experts in his Department can construe humps as meaning the corrugated device, which can be much more effective.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I welcome article 4, which is a necessary measure against the parking of heavy commercial vehicles on the pavement. A number of accidents have been caused by large commercial vehicles being parked and other vehicles running into them in the dark. On other occasions, even in daylight, children have run out from behind the vehicles. As the Minister said, another problem is the blind trying to get along the footpaths and finding the vehicles parked in their way, which is dangerous. Attempts have been made to curb that type of parking, using the present legislation. That has not proved successful.
Generally, commercial vehicles park around filling stations. Double yellow lines are put down on both sides of the road, which means that the people who live on the other side of the road cannot park outside their houses. That disadvantages those who live close to the filling stations.
At a certain filling station in my constituency, drivers of large vehicles have a habit of driving on to the footpath to fill up with diesel at a pump which is conveniently placed beside the footpath, instead of driving on to the forecourt. A difficulty arises because the drivers forget about their lorries parked on the footpath and go into the café, which is in the filling station, to have their meal. They come out again in about an hour. I am not trying to prevent the drivers from having a meal, but it would be better if they parked on the forecourt or in the lay-by which is just a little way down the road.
It is fine to bring in the order, provided that it is enforced. What if it is enforced in the same way as regulations dealing with gipsies and itinerants? My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has been fighting a rearguard action in upper Balinderry against vehicles, caravans and even horses which graze on the grass verges.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No donkeys.

Mr. Forsythe: No donkeys. It is essential that the order should be enforced rigidly. The Under—Secretary should realise — he probably agrees with me — that large vehicles parked on the footpaths destroy the surfaces and perhaps even the electric wiring beneath the footpaths, causing the street lights to go out. It would be helpful if large lorries could be kept off the verges.
I express interest in this subject because I live on the road that comes from Templepatrick, past Ballyclare to Larne. There are lovely grass verges by the side of the road. The lorry drivers decide that they want to take a rest and so they drive on to the grass verge. They plough up the grass verge and we end up with no grass. That is unfortunate, considering the fact that the Department of the Environment keeps the grass verges in good order.
Article 26A(2)(a) states:
A person shall not be convicted of an offence by virtue of paragraph (1) if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—

(a) in accordance with permission given by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in uniform or a traffic warden".


If a driver had been given permission by a policeman in uniform or traffic warden to park, who would take him to court? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give an explanation.
I understand that a vehicle could be allowed to park on the verge of a road for the purpose of loading or unloading. If the vehicle would otherwise hold up traffic, it must be parked on the verge to keel) it out of the way.
Article 26A(3)(b) states:
that the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been parked on the footway or verge".
Not having been in the construction industry I do not understand why one cannot unload on the road if one can unload on the footpath. I do not know why this provision is included.
I can see extra employment being created because of article 26A(3)(c). It states:
the vehicle was not left unattended at any time when it was so parked.
I assume that the driver will ensure that he has someone with him all the time to look after the lorry.
I welcome, as other hon. Members have, schedule 2, which provides for humps on roads to assist with road safety. I can think of roads in my constituency where cars come to a bottleneck. They slip down a side road and drive through residential districts where a great many children play. We have occasionally asked whether there is a way to stop that, but we have been told that it is not possible to put up a "No entry" sign because the road is a through way, and there could not be a 15 mph sign because motorists would not obey it and the police would have to sit there all the time to enforce it.
There is a case for humps to be constructed so that motorists are discouraged from taking short cuts. If they run into a couple of humps they might find it better to go up to the bottleneck.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful for the varied and interesting contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made, beginning with the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He referred understandably to article 6 and asked whether it


related to the cross-harbour rail link and what the Government's latest proposals were on that substantial capital project.
As I said, the power to build railways provided in article 6 is being taken as a general transport planning provision. It could be used for the cross-harbour link should that project be proceeded with.
Equally, and this is a point I make because I have listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), it could be used should the rail network be involved in the transport of lignite, given the encouraging signs that there are about that discovery.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) asked about the rail-road link across the Lagan. The rail link remains part of the Belfast transportation strategy. I cannot say any more to the House than I said at the beginning of the year to the Belfast city council. We shall review the position each year when we consider public expenditure for the three-year period ahead, but the rail link will not be provided in advance of the road link. The estimated cost of the rail link, at 1984 prices, is £16 million. That excludes land costs. I am aware of the interest in that project and we shall continue to consider it in the public expenditure discussions year on year.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred to the rail network in the Newry area. It is a subject about which I know a certain amount. I spent one of the happiest days of my happy year and a half in Northern Ireland opening the new railway station at Newry. I note what he says about the rail link to Warrenpoint. I am sure that Sir Myles Humphreys, the chairman of Northern Ireland Railways, and his board, will also note it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the new powers on railway construction. He was right in saying that we are removing the need to proceed by means of a private Act. However, I feel that there are adequate safeguards in the proposed procedure. There will, for example, be provision for a public inquiry in relation to the vesting of the land and the construction of the railway, but the essential point made by the right hon. Gentleman was correct.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the detailed provisions of article 10, particular in relation to paragraph (2). Similar regulations have been made in Great Britain by the Department of Transport, requiring public service vehicles registered in Northern Ireland, when Operating certain services within Great Britain, to carry authorisations issued by the Department of Transport. Therefore, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has to make a reciprocal Northern Ireland regulation to deal with public service vehicles registered in Great Britain which operate similar services in Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the object of the licensing to restrict or control the provision of transport services? Is it, as it were, an old style transport planning provision? If it is, why is it still being maintained?

Mr. Patten: Perhaps I can take up the point with the right hon. Gentleman later in correspondence, as obviously I have not made the point sufficiently clear at the Dispatch Box.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the procedure for level crossing orders and the alterations in it. Again he was right. Section 66 of the Transport (Northern Ireland) Act 1967 provided that such orders were to be subject to affirmative resolution. The point was also made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in the Stormont Parliament. Under direct rule, such orders are subject to negative resolution at Westminister and come before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The substituted section 66 makes no specific provision as to how level crossing orders are to be treated. They therefore fall to be dealt with under section 78 of that Act, which provides that regulations are to be subject to negative resolution, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. Such orders will be submitted in draft to the Northern Ireland Assembly and will be scrutinised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. I do not think that it is necessarily appropriate that orders with a very localised impact should continue to be dealt with here at Westminister. I note that their Great Britain equivalents are not subject to any scrutiny such as that.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about accommodation crossings. Northern Ireland Railways have plans to provide improved safety measures at accommodation crossings. Those measures are being carried through by the company in a programme planned over a six-year period.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised a number of issues, particularly with regard to level crossings. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in and concern for the subject. I assure him that the Department will not consider the making of an order unless it is satisfied that all concerned are content with the detailed safety measures proposed.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern about the endangering of pedestrian safety by the removal of gated crossings, but, as I have pointed out to the hon. Member in correspondence, the evidence from Great Britain shows that gated crossings have the worst accident record, and that the automatic safeguards built into the open crossing system offer substantial protection to all crossings users.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked a number of questions relating to road humps, which understandably concerned other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that our draft follows the Transport Act 1981, particularly section 32. The criteria will be set out in regulations designed to protect not only residents but motorists. The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the criteria that would be applied. Of course, as usual we shall have to take account of accident figures, vehicle and pedestrian flows—the usual rational criteria that always determine major and minor capital works on roads.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Perhaps it would be wise at this stage to draw the Minister's attention to the lack of enthusiasm that there will be for road humps in Omagh roads division, especially in my district council area, where we have been beseeching the Minister for a considerable time to provide adequate finance to remove the unnatural humps and other impediments in our area. When that is done, no doubt we shall welcome the provision of humps, to which the Minister referred.

Mr. Patten: I recently had the opportunity to discuss at some length the provision of funds in the Omagh


division with a council in that division. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point of view that he put to me vigorously was put equally vigorously by several councillors on that occasion. Several councillors wished to make it clear to me that they, too, did a good deal of low flying around their own area.
I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that we have made more money available in that division, as in others, particularly for minor works, in the past year or so. Roads expenditure as a whole in Northern Ireland has fallen as housing expenditure has risen, almost exponentially. Though that has unfortunate consequences for any Minister regularly visiting district councils. it is wholly justifiable in terms of the overall allocation of funds within the programmes in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley talked about a device which I suspect is designed for slowing down fast traffic on a main road, but by definition the humps that we are thinking about are designed for an entirely different purpose—to discourage the rat runs, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred, through suburban streets, which I know causes a good deal of alarm and concern, particularly to mothers taking their children to school in the mornings.
The hon. Members for Londonderry, East and for Antrim, South and the right hon. Member for South Down talked about parking on verges. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East that in Great Britain the Government took power to ban all footway parking, but the difficulty is that the Government have not been as successful as we should have liked in implementing that ban universally. Heavy vehicles do the most damage to verges. We are, therefore, wise to start with them. It is important to ensure that the legislation is adequately enforced—a point made strongly by the right hon. Member for South Down. The way that we are concentrating on heavy vehicles gives us the best chance and opportunity of doing that.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Minister assure the House that there is adequate legislation to prevent the growing development of verge sales throughout the year in Northern Ireland, particularly at roundabouts?

Mr. Patten: I think that there are two issues here, one of which sometimes stems from sales involving more permanent parking by itinerants or travelling people. I believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, South referred to that. I very much hope that the proposals that I announced recently will help in that regard. As for sales not involving travelling people or the curious category of "static travelling people" as they are sometimes described, powers are available to the constabulary to deal with the problems that arise although I accept that those powers need to be examined.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to the powers available to stop vehicles. Power to do that already exists in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The new provision will enable the RUC or an inspector of vehicles to direct a vehicle that has been stopped to a place where it can be examined. The new power will be useful in dealing with overloaded vehicles, which I believe that the hon. Gentleman had in mind. The Department is engaged in providing more weighbridge facilities, which should help us to deal with those vehicles. The five-mile provision is designed to bring more goods vehicles into the weighbridge net and thus to ensure both fairer competition and road safety.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister saying that the inspections are now to be restricted merely to determining whether a vehicle is overloaded and that the provision has nothing to do with the mechanical safety or otherwise of the vehicle?

Mr. Patten: No, of course we are concerned about the mechanical safety of vehicles as well. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that he had referred particularly to overloading.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to foreign vehicles. I confirm that power already exists under the 1981 order to inspect, weigh and, if necessary, prohibit the driving of such vehicles. That should catch the kind of vehicle that he had in mind.
With the exception of the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Down with which I did not deal adequately, I believe that I have covered most of the points referred to by hon. Members.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Patten: I see that another is coming up.

Mr. Ross: In view of the change that is evidently coming in relation to the provisions about level crossings and as the order will come into operation two months from today, is the Minister in a position to give an undertaking that the Milburn order will be laid under the existing provisions rather than these provisions before that dare?

Mr. Patten: No, I am not in a position to give that undertaking but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that, as I am aware of his concern about it. I am extremely keen to ensure that there is as full and open consultation as possible on the subject of crossings, as extremely important questions of safety arise in which the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members, councillors and other people representing the interests of local communities take a very proper interest. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that interest again today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Road Traffic, Transport and Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Family Law)

1 am

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
The main purpose of this order is to bring the rights of occupation in respect of the matrimonial home in Northern Ireland broadly into line with those in England and Wales under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. The order also follows both England and Wales and Scotland in giving cohabiting couples protection from domestic violence. In addition, the opportunity is taken to abolish the action for breach of promise of marriage and to restate the law relating to the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage.
The order covers some rather technical ground and, as a non-lawyer, I crave the indulgence of the House and especially of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) if I lend more emphasis to the general principles underlying this legislation rather than the legal minutiae. I shall deal first with occupation rights in the matrimonial home where one spouse—usually the wife—is not entitled to occupy the matrimonial home in her own right but does so by virtue of the other spouse's right to occupy it. In this situation the non-entitled wife has little protection if her husband puts her out of the home or sells it over her head. This is most likely to happen when the marriage is breaking down. The husband might first exclude his wife from the matrimonial home or simply sell it behind her back; or he might desert the wife, leaving her in the matrimonial home. Were he then to mortgage the property and subsequently default on the mortgage, the mortgagee could enforce his security by taking possession proceedings against the wife which would result in the wife losing the matrimonial home.
Part II of the order is designed to remedy this state of affairs. It applies equally to both non-entitled husbands and wives. But, as I have indicated, in practice it is usually the wife whose occupation rights are dependent upon the husband and it is she who is generally in the weaker position.
Article 4 gives the non-entitled wife the right not to be excluded or evicted from the matrimonial home by the husband without a court order or, if not in occupation, the right with the leave of the court to re-enter and occupy the matrimonial home. Those are the new statutory rights of occupation.
Articles 5 and 6 contain the provisions which protect the non-entitled spouse from sales or mortgages over her head. In such circumstances, the rights of occupation operate as a charge known as a matrimonial charge. To be effective and binding against a purchaser, defined in article 3 to include a mortgagee, a matrimonial charge must be registered in the Land Registry or Registry of Deeds in accordance with article 6 at the appropriate time. The charge must be so registered before the purchaser enters into a contract to purchase an estate affected by the charge or before the mortgagee takes a deposit of title documents as security for a loan.
These provisions strike a balance between the rights of occupation of the non-entitled spouse on the one hand and the rights of purchasers and mortgagees deriving title from

the entitled spouse on the other. The non-entitled spouse must be able to protect her rights of occupation in the matrimonial home; and the purchaser or the mortgagee must be able to establish that he is not purchasing property or advancing money on a security which is subject to binding rights of occupation on the part of the non-entitled spouse.
Article 10 is an important provision which expressly provides for the release of the rights of occupation or for the postponement of a matrimonial charge in favour of another mortgage or charge. This provision will be useful where the non-entitled spouse is agreeable to the sale or mortgage, so that the purchaser or mortgagee may proceed in the certainty that he will not be bound by the nonentitled spouse's rights of occupation.
Before I leave this part of the order, I wish to draw the attention of the House to paragraphs (2) and (3) of article 6 which represent the most significant alterations to the order since it was published as a proposal. They result from the extremely helpful recommendations of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.

Dr. Boyson: —and from representations made by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. I am gratified to hear the words "Hear, hear," if only once, while describing a somewhat complicated order. Having received that sign of approval, I can enhance my position further by telling the House that, of the 14 recommendations for change put forward by the Assembly, 13 were accepted.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.

Dr. Boyson: We stated clearly to the Assembly—the letter was written after I came to this post—why we could not accept the remaining recommendation. If necessary, I shall enlarge on that point tonight. However, 13 of the 14 recommendations for change advanced by the Assembly were accepted by the Government.
Paragraph (2) of article 6 is an additional provision which has been inserted to define the word "estate" for the purposes of paragraph 1. Its purpose is to ensure that matrimonial charges are only registrable in relation to estates in land which are themselves registrable in the Land Registry or Registry of Deeds, namely, freehold estates and leaseholds exceeding 21 years. These are the estates which are likely to be sold or mortgaged.
Paragraph (3) of article 6 alters the time before which a matrimonial charge must be registered to be binding against a purchaser. I have already indicated that the charge must be registered before the purchaser or mortgagee enters into a contract to purchase or before he takes documents of title as security for a loan, thus creating an equitable mortgage. As originally published, the order followed the English position more closely by providing that a charge would be void, and therefore not binding, against a purchaser unless registered before registration of the purchase in the Land Registry, or, in the case of unregistered land, unless registered in the Registry of Deeds before completion. But because of differences in the system of conveyancing in Northern Ireland—I am informed that there are major differences as compared with England—strong representations were made to the effect that the original provision did not strike the intended balance between the non-entitled spouse and the purchaser. Paragraph (3) takes account of the representations and produces greater certainty.
Part III follows the recommendations contained in Law Commission Report No. 26 on breach of promise of marriage, which was implemented in England and Wales by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. Article 15 abolishes the action for damages for breach of promise of marriage, which is no longer used in practice in Northern Ireland. I inquired when the last case had been and was told that in the past seven years there been only one, and that it was not completed. Article 16 provides for property disputes between the parties to a terminated engagement to marry by applying the same law and procedure as in property disputes between spouses. Article 17 amends the rules of law which relate to gifts between the parties to a terminated engagement.
Part III also restates the law relating to the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage in Northern Ireland. Article 18 sets out the prohibited degrees in a table which corresponds to schedule 1 to the Marriage Act 1949 in England and Wales.
Part IV contains an important provision to extend to cohabiting couples and their children the legislative protection from domestic violence currently available to spouses, Article 20 widens the scope of articles 18, 19 and 21 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. It empowers courts of summary jurisdiction to make personal protection orders and exclusion orders in respect of couples who are living or have lived together in the same household as if they were husband and wife. Protection from domestic violence in respect of such cohabiting couples is already available in the rest of the United Kingdom under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.
The order has been well received by those who were consulted, including the Northern Ireland Assembly. There was only one division in the Assembly, and it was on the rights of the cohabiting woman. The provision was accepted by 18 votes to five. The order has been welcomed as a vehicle for some timely and necessary reforms in family law. It brings family law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the House welcomes that.

Mr. Peter Archer: This is another order in respect of which it is no task of mine to express any deep disagreements of principle. The Opposition's reaction is chiefly to wonder why provisions so sensible took so long to introduce.
There are substantial points of detail which we might have wished to discuss had we been accorded the luxury of a Committee stage. One of the unhappy consequences of direct rule is that subjects which on this side of the water would be dealt with in a Second Reading debate, a Committee stage with a plethora of amendments and subsequent stages—which are still frequently insufficiently considered to spare us the mistakes and oversights that bedevil our law and administration—are foisted on Northern Ireland after a brief debate on an unamendable order.
The extension of rights of occupation in the matrimonial home to a non-entitled spouse is long overdue.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that it is of significant

value to the people of Northern Ireland that this order, like others that we shall discuss in the early hours of the morning, has been fully scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Assembly, to the extent that 13 of its 14 recommendations have been accepted and are included?

Mr. Archer: Yes, the Assembly does an important Job in scrutinising orders of this kind.
As long ago as 1967, I was privileged to be asked by Baroness Summerskill to pilot through the House a Bill which she had introduced in another place, and which became the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, which first introduced this principle on this side of the water. It is only now being extended to Northern Ireland.
It is understandable and agreeable that the order has been welcomed by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Women's Law and Research Group and by the women's committee of the ICTU, but I believe that it will be welcomed far more widely by all those who believe in elementary justice. A Committee stage might have been valuable to consider the anxieties of the Law Society about the mechanics of registration, but those were considered in the Assembly. If experience reveals a genuine problem, I hope that the Government will come back with an amending order.
One consequence of having no Committee stage is that we are compelled in this debate to refer to matters which we might otherwise have explored at a subsequent stage. Article 4 (3) provides that in relation to the occupation of a non-entitled spouse, the court may make such order as it thinks just and reasonable, having regard among other things to
the conduct of the spouses in relation to each other".
I share the anxieties which have been expressed about the consequences of that. Some of us are long enough in the tooth to remember when the courts investigated conduct, both in considering whether to terminate a marriage and for ancillary purposes. The Minister was kind enough to refer to the fact that some of us with legal experience in these matters might have points of detail to contribute. I can remember the tedious hours spent in cross-examination and investigating such allegations as
distressed the Petitioner by serving him cold tea".
I remember how the time of the court was consumed, large costs accumulated and, more seriously, how the parlies were forced to undergo the embarrassment of a public inquiry into the daily incidents of their domestic life. Some were so dismayed by the prospect that they were prepared to forgo a claim to justice rather than submit to such an inquisition. I hope that these words are intended to be construed as limited to conduct related to the disposition of the home. But I fear that once they are in the order it may be difficult to exclude conduct which is alleged to be relevant to the question whether one spouse can bear to be in the same house as the other. This might be a backward step towards resurrecting Victorian values.
I am troubled by article 5(7). It has never been easy to reconcile the demands of insolvency law with a compassionate approach to the problem. It is unfair that the rights of non-entitled spouses may be overridden by debts which they could and would have paid if they had been given the opportunity. It is even more unfair if a husband deliberately makes himself insolvent to out-manoeuvre his wife. It seems that a not unreasonable suggestion was made by the Law Society, and adopted by


the Assembly, that the courts should have discretion and that that should be achieved by making a matrimonial charge not void but voidable at the discretion of the court.
The decision to extend the principle of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order to cohabitees is very much welcomed by the Opposition. There can be no reason why a woman living in the same house as a man should not be protected from violence even though she lacks a marriage certificate. And it is high time that we abolished the old concept of breach of promise.
The procedures of direct rule being what they are and leaving us with no opportunity to discuss these matters in Committee, we must judge the order as a whole, balancing its contents with its omissions. On that basis, we have no hesitation in supporting it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister said when presenting the order that he did not have legal training and would therefore deal only with the generalities and principles. I, likewise, do not have legal training. Perhaps it is significant that my young colleague in the Assembly from South Belfast, the late Edgar Graham, had had legal training. The draft order was first submitted to the Finance and Personnel Committee when he was chairman of it. Next week will be the anniversary of his brutal murder. The Province lost an able politician and lawyer in that dastardly deed.
I welcome the kind remarks about the scrutiny role of the Assembly, but I was aware when the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to the need to study these matters in Committee that one of the problems that faces the Assembly is the technical absence of a Government representative to defend Government legislation. We have discovered tonight how important it is to tease out information in the course of debate. However, with those limitations, I believe that the Assembly has done a worthwhile job. Despite the invitation to be present, there are problems that mean that Ministers do not like to stay with the Assembly into the small hours of the morning answering questions and supplying information that is vital to us.
My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the order. We do so because in an age when we hear critics minimising the importance of the family, we discover that there is still a remarkable degree of stability, especially within family units in Northern Ireland. We acknowledge that while the institution of marriage can often be the butt of music hall comedians, it is still a desirous state. Anything which strengthens the institution is to be welcomed. I share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West who welcomed the order as long overdue and needed to give protection to spouses—especially the wife—of a marriage in Northern Ireland.
In some ways, we may not have gone so far down the road in financial arrangements as is evident in other parts of the United Kingdom where, in joint tenancies or joint accounts, husband and wife have an equal interest. In some parts of Northern Ireland, there is still a tendency for everything to be in the name of the husband. Accordingly, as I understand this, the most important of the three orders before us this evening, it seeks to implement the rights

conferred by the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 on the occupational right of a spouse where one spouse has no estate.
Before this measure was introduced, the husband—especially in the Northern Ireland context—owned the house, and the wife had no legal estate—her name was not on the deeds—and neither did she have any beneficial estate. Because she had not put any money into the house she had no equitable right. I welcome the fact that in recognising the reality of life today, where a woman contributes much in the creation of the home, the order gives her a recognised stake in it. Until now, the law meant that the wife occupied the home only at the pleasure of the husband. The 1983 Act and the order seek to rectify that problem.
I was interested to note that tribute has been paid to the contribution of the Women's Law and Research Group and the Equal Opportunities Commission. They specifically referred to the taking into account of conduct, and criticised that provision. The Assembly rightly came down in favour of retaining conduct in the order. I am aware that some are terrified of the concept of what they call the "establishment of a fault" principle. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred to the restoration of Victorian values. I am not so sure that some of those values do not need to be restored today for the good of the nation. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the order retains the concept of conduct.
The crucial element in the order is contained in article 4, which gives the occupational right to which I referred. It brings the benefits of the 1983 Act to non-owning spouses in Ulster. Article 4 (2)(a), (b) and (c) provide that a non-owning spouse is given positive power to act against an owning spouse, and article 4(2)(b) is especially useful.
Perhaps it is my theological and ecclesiastical background that heaved a sign of relief when I discovered that the degrees of relationship had not been changed. It appears that despite the headlong rush for modernity, the nation has a fair amount of sense and sensibility. I welcome the fact that those laws have not been changed. However, they codify what, in a sense, has been traditional. Article 18(3) is interesting. Does it mean that we amend our laws about who can or cannot marry according to the laws of a foreign country? If so, why? I do not fully understand the method of expression and would be grateful for clarification of it.
I share the sentiments of those who welcome the cancellation of the old breach of promise laws. They were unenforceable and could have left have a difficult position open to abuse. Because it eliminates the legal action that could have been pursued if someone broke off an engagement, this long overdue amendment is welcome, as are the terms on which a marriage-type settlement for property of such an engagement is applied.
The Minister referred to the one element of disagreement in the Assembly's publication. It was interesting, because it met the terms of the Act—it evidenced widespread support and did not come from one section of the Assembly. It manifested a concern that one part of the order may have tended to undermine the institution of marriage. Members of the Assembly who opposed the article on cohabitation were concerned about that. However, I believe that even they share the belief that if two people are cohabiting, especially if it is for any length of time, have assumed the responsibilities of husband and wife within a family context and the husband


mistreats the cohabitee, it is unfair that there is no right of redress. It is essential to the law of natural justice that the rights of such a person should be defended.
I welcome the general import of the order, which strengthens the traditional concept of family law and ensures that there is a degree of equality between the parties.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I, too, welcome the order. Tonight we have illustrated the value of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I sat in the House before there was an Assembly to scrutinise such orders. Tonight we meet at 1.30 to pass the order, when one is not at one's brightest.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Speak for yourself.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Neither the Minister nor the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is at his brightest at this hour of the morning. It does not matter whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a loud protest. It is ridiculous to pass laws for a nation at this unseemly hour. The order should have been debated at a reasonable hour.
However, the Northern Ireland Assembly was able to spend many hours on this order. I entirely endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) about the noble and excellent work of Edgar Graham. It is difficult to realise that a year has passed since his terrible murder. Mr. Graham put his hand to this legislation to try to do something for the ordinary people of Northern Ireland that would benefit all sections of the community.
The fact that 13 of the Assembly's 14 recommendations were accepted shows that the Assembly is carrying out its work with diligence, courage and zeal. It put forward reasonable amendments to the orders, and the Government accepted the vast majority of them because of the reasoned way in which they were put and because of their sense. It should be put on record that Northern Ireland and the order would be the poorer if we did not have the Assembly. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that there is no Committee in the House to deal with such orders, and that Northern Ireland Members have no opportunity in Parliament, which is the sovereign Parliament of the nation, adequately to deal with them. Therefore, it is even more important to maintain the Assembly structure, and to encourage it to continue the good work that it has done with the orders.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, with this order we are underscoring the importance of safeguarding family life and its vital contribution to society. Some members of the Assembly felt strongly about cohabiting, not because they believed that a cohabitee should not be protected by the law, but because they believed that such conduct should not take place. I appreciate their dilemma, and understand why they voted against that section. The Minister will probably agree with that when he replies.
The order is an example of the necessary work being done by the Assembly to ensure the better government of Northern Ireland and better legislation passed in the House. We have no opportunity to bring the Minister before a Committee of the House and talk to him about our problems. I hope that Ministers will attend Assembly

Sessions more often when it deals with such orders; arrangements will be made to ensure more playback from Ministers. That is the only way in which legislators will have the opportunity properly to scrutinise and digest the laws that govern Northern Ireland, and to make suggestions for amending and strengthening them.
I welcome the order. I believe that its approval will be helpful. I am particularly pleased about the arrangements made for the break-up of an engagement. Anyone involved in pastoral work knows the difficulty that occurs between two families and the two parties in such a break-up. I am glad that there is to be some redress in law. It is a very important part of the order.

Dr. Boyson: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief reply to the debate.
It is interesting that the emphasis has been on the moral and the principle side, because I see Parliament's job as being to consider general principles and then to bring people within legislation from there. I do not think that the order can be criticised for undermining any moral values. It restates in modern terms what was laid down in the 17th century.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) drew attention to the end of article 3 about links with people outside the country. I am told that it is highly technical. I was supplied with some material to enable me to reply to the hon. Gentleman which I found extremely difficult to understand because it touches on international law. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when I understand it fully so that he may share my understanding. I feel that it is pointless to read out an explanation which I do not fully understand.

Mr. Archer: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Gentleman. Any person is normally subject to the law of the country in which he or she is domiciled for this purpose. It would be arrogating to ourselves the right to overrule the law of the country if we said that the law of Northern Ireland should apply in the case of someone who was domiciled elsewhere. It is as simple as that.

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that intervention. I trust that at other times when I have complicated legal matters to deal with I can rely upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he will always interpret the law correctly. If there is any dispute about this matter, obviously I shall still write to the hon. Member for Belfast, South about it, because it is not one that I have met before. I am sure that others have, but I had not until the question was asked of me.
We heard two views on the subject of conduct and whether it should be considered. It is one of the factors enumerated in article 4(3), namely the conduct of the spouse, and it is intended that this, with respective needs and financial resources, the needs of any children and all the circumstances of the case, should be taken into account during an assessment. The court would consider all the factors there enumerated and weigh them according to their relevance to the facts of the case.
Conduct might be considered by the court to have particular relevance in two kinds of case. The first is an application for an ouster injunction under article 4(3), where, for example, the entitled spouse was violent to the non-entitled spouse. In an appropriate case the court would


have power to exclude the entitled spouse from the matrimonial home. The second case in which conduct might be considered relevant is where a non-entitled wife with rights of occupation acquiesced in the sale of the matrimonial home without the knowledge of her partner in marriage. I shall not go into further details. The issue is one that is raised in the event of divorce in that the court has to decide whether there is a guilty party. At this hour it would be dangerous to start that debate, with differing views being expressed by right hon. and hon. Members.
We can all welcome the order. I want especially to underline what hon. Members have said about the value put upon it by the Assembly when considering it before it came back to the House, to say nothing of the fact that 13 of the 14 recommendations were accepted. Although the Assembly may not have liked the 14th recommendation, it brings the law into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
We are grateful for the scrutiny given to the order by the Assembly because it has resulted in an order of which the House can approve. It does not undermine any of the morality that we uphold. It does that morality even greater justice, in modern terms.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Loans)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr.Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.
I shall be brief because this is a relatively simple issue, and it would be difficult to introduce morality into this debate, although, I know how, in the House, issues of morality can be introduced into almost any debate.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I shall introduce them.

Dr. Boyson: I shall leave that to the right hon. Gentleman.
The order increases by £200 million the amount available for lending from the National Loans Fund to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland.
The present order is concerned solely with Northern Ireland's level of borrowing from the National Loans Fund. The Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975 provided that a total of £800 million could be lent from the National Loans Fund to Northern Ireland and also made provision for the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to increase this amount, on one occasion only, by a sum not exceeding £200 million, to £1,000 million. It is this £200 million which is the subject of the present order.
Northern Ireland borrowing has not yet reached the existing limit of £800 million. I believe that in March this year, when another tranche was taken, it reached £798 million, so only £2 million was left for any further borrowing. That is why it is expected that before the end of the current financial year, the £200 million extra will be required.
The new limit of £1,000 million authorised by this order is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the borrowing needs of Northern Ireland for very long. I intend therefore to bring forward further legislation during the 1985–86 parliamentary Session to enable the limit of £1,000 million to be increased.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was perhaps because he had family law still so much on his mind that the Minister hardly did justice to what is a remarkable and curious financial mechanism. I hope that I shall not pose to him propositions that are too deep for understanding, whether at this time of night or at any other time, but I assure him that, if not issues of family morality, issues of financial morality are potentially raised by what has been laid before us in so apparently simple and innocent a form.
One is somewhat reassured by the Minister's indication that, as the power of increasing the limit by order is exhausted by the present order, it will be necessary to legislate if borrowing in this form is to continue, which I hope that it will not, for reasons that I shall explain. When that happens, we shall have the whole panoply and mechanism of a Bill that will enable us to scrutinise both the principles and the details and to be fully informed as to the witchcraft that is to be practised.
Under the principal Act, sums are advanced by the Secretary of State to the Consolidated Fund of Northern


Ireland. I interpose here a fact of which the Minister will become aware before long, although this is his first opportunity to learn it. Hon. Members on this Bench are bitterly opposed to the existence of the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland, which they regard as one of those many artificial devices that are maintained solely for the purpose of insulating and isolating the affairs of the Province from those of the rest of the United Kingdom and preventing them from being seen as an integral part of the financial administration of the rest of the United Kingdom.
I return after that excursus to my quotation:
the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury advance to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland by way of any sum"—
I come to the words of importance—
for the purpose of any expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is of a capital nature.
It is to enable the Secretary of State to make advances to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland that this Act and this order tap the National Loans Fund.
Our inquisitiveness is immediately stimulated as to what may be
the expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is of a capital nature.
I hoped that my inquisitiveness might be satisfied by the fact that under the principal Act it is necessary for an account to be rendered annually of the sums which have been advanced under the principal Act and there has to be a report upon it from the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I sought from the Vote Office the most recent account and report, and was served with House of Commons paper 159,
Accounts relating to Issues from the National Loans Fund 1982–83
which, I must admit, I returned to the Vote Office with indignation, saying that it did not contain the very documents for which I was searching. With customary diligence and curiosity, the Vote Office researched and drew my attention to the last two pages of that paper. Looking at those pages, I ascertained the presence of the annual accounts for the sums advanced during the financial year 1982–83. I said, "There is something missing. We are also due for the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General." In the financial scrutiny which Northern Ireland Members endeavour to give to Appropriation orders and such like instruments, we rely upon the assistance that we obtain from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. So I said, "Where is the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland?" After an interval, my attention was drawn to the small print at the foot of the very last page—almost a flyleaf of the report. It stated:
I certify that I have examined the above Account. In my opinion the Account properly presents the receipts and payments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under section 3(1) of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975 for the year ended 31 March 1983. I have no observations to make upon it.
This is the first occasion when I have seriously quarrelled with the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, for, indeed, I do have observations to make upon the account. The accounts are entirely uninformative. Surely, when the House asked to have accounts showing the loans which had been made by the Secretary of State, it was entitled to be told the expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of a "capital nature" for which loans have been advanced by him out of moneys obtained by him from the National

Loans Fund. What are the expenditures "of a capital nature" so different from the other expenditures incurred in the government of Northern Ireland that they can be contained within the narrow compass of an outstanding total which has not yet exceeded £800 million, to which an addition of no more than £200 million is necessary to tide the Government over for another two years?
We know the purposes for which advances are made from the National Loans Fund in other circumstances. Those who examine the table of contents of House of Commons paper 159 will be enlightened upon them. They are conveniently classified under various heads which will enable me to make the point of principle at which the Minister and the House will eventually, I hope, discover I am driving. The heads are:
Accounts of Loans to Nationalised Industries.
They are loans to nationalised industries from the National Loans Fund. Then
Loans to Other Public Corporations"—
yes—
Loans to Local and Harbour Authorities…Loans to Private Sector.
Those are all loans to non-governmental bodies, to bodies other than Departments of State, made by the National Loans Fund; for the National Loans Fund is the avatar of the old Public Works Loans Funds which was set up to enable local authorities to borrow for capital purposes—for their capital expenditure, easily distinguished from their current expenditures—at what was then thought would be more advantageous conditions than they could obtain in the open market.
After all those categories of capital expenditure to which the National Loans Fund contributes directly in the rest of the United Kingdom, we find the final heading:
Accounts of Loans within Central Government under: Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975.
There is here a splendid spoof. All the expenditure which is incurred by the Government of Ireland, of whatever nature, is granted by the House out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. It is a curious arrangement whereby a small infusion into that Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland is made from the National Loans Fund instead of any of the other sources from which the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland is topped up.
Of course, the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland is a fictional system; it is a system by which money enters from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund and is poured out again into the expenditure in Northern Ireland, thereby preventing the House from dealing with the expenditures and Estimates for Northern Ireland in the manner in which it deals with other issues out of the Consolidated Fund.
Yet here is this curious little trickle, as it were, this extra pipe of a thin bore, which leads—I suppose by the principle of the siphon—out of the National Loans Fund into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland to meet expenditures, not distinguished, not named, not identified, which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are "of a capital nature", expenditure so exiguous that, as I say, another £200 million will see them through the next two years. It is nonsense.
To meet the expenditure of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the Government borrow at the margin—the jolly old central Government borrowing requirement—whatever they do not feel inclined to find by tax or obtain by other revenues. There is no


identification or relationship between the total of central Government borrowing in any given financial year and any section of the Government's expenditure in that financial year—no means of connecting the two. Indeed, thanks to the wise dispensation of our predecessors at the end of the 18th and the early years of the 19th centuries, it is impossible to distinguish them. We have eliminated the notion of assigned revenues by the principle of a Consolidated Fund. Thus the borrowings of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to which ultimately this little trickle is attributable, are by way of a marginal financing of the grand total of Government expenditure. They have nothing to do with the sort of purposes for which persons and corporations inside the economy, inside the realm, are allowed to or prudently may borrow. They are not secured upon any particular revenues; they are not related to the profitability or unprofitability, efficiency or inefficiency of any of the activities financed by central Government. It is just a margin—that part of the sums to be expended which the Government do not care to meet by taxation.
That is of necessity also true of that sham Consolidated Fund—the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. There is a grand total of expenditure for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is answerable to the House. Of that grand total an undefinable quantity may be attributed to the central Government borrowing requirement of the United Kingdom. The matter cannot be expressed more definitely than that. Yet we have this pantomime of purporting to borrow sums from the National Loans Fund for the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in order that they may be spent on undisclosed expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is "of a capital nature".
It is all humbug. Whether it is capital expenditure—on any economic analysis—or not capital expenditure, these sums do not go any way to meet it. They are not assigned to it. The returns on those investments are not related to these sums. We have no accounts which make any sense of them, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, finally defeated, had to sink back into being an ordinary auditor and certify the uninformative accounts.
I will make a suggestion to the Government. Clearly what lay behind this practice in its earlier days was that once upon a time the Government of Northern Ireland found it convenient—and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were agreeable—rather than borrowing at their margin in the market, to borrow from the National Loans Fund. Some such loans were still outstanding when that Government was abolished and superseded by direct rule. Instead, however, of acknowledging that thereby public expenditure in Northern Ireland was merged in the public expenditure of the United Kingdom, a fiction of borrowing from the National Loans Fund for capital purposes in Northern Ireland was continued, and that is what we have before us in the order.
It is an order which—I make no complaint about the Minister himself—insults the House by withholding information as to. the nature of the expenditure. Though, of course, we understand very well why that information is not given, we understand very well why the Secretary of State has not published a list of the sums "of a capital nature" on which these moneys have been laid out. If he

attempted to do so, it would be seen to be a perfectly artificial and random selection, in no way differentiated from many other much larger expenditures for which he was responsible.
I ask the Minister, rather than putting the parliamentary draftsmen to work upon a new edition of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1978, not to do anything at all. There will be no difference, no disadvantage or loss whatever suffered by any interest in Northern Ireland, if he does that. Indeed, there will be no alteration in the financing of those expenditures in any real economic sense. Their impact on the general level of inflation will be quite unaltered. So, I say, let it lapse.
I will tell the Minister from what quarter he will encounter opposition when he makes that perfectly simple suggestion. A suggestion which will put him in favour with the Whips who are not a class of men who go around looking for reasons for additional legislation, particularly Northern Ireland legislation, which is apt at untimely hours to stir the loquacity of those representing seats in Northern Ireland. It will also endear him to his colleagues in the Cabinet, his rivals for parliamentary time. His absence from the Legislation Committee will be but a blessing upon his head. No, it is not from those quarters that the Minister has anything to apprehend; it is from a different quarter altogether. I shall tell him where the opposition will come from. It will come from much nearer at hand—from the Northern Ireland Office.
Of course, it will not tell him the full reason for its opposition. He will find that it will be opposed to the legislation lapsing, because it will perceive in that the seeds of the eventual demise of the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland; and he may wonder why it is that the Northern Ireland Office, or those whom the Minister will find confronting him, should be so dedicated to the continued existence of that venerable survival.
It is because they are implicated in an agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic that no alteration will be made in the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland which in any way tends to consolidate the Union or make it more difficult for Northern Ireland to be hived off into some form of combination with the Irish Republic. That is why those very people regard it as almost the ultimate disaster that had fallen upon their heads when our Province received full representation in this House. That is why they mugged the then Prime Minister the following day when they discovered what he had given away.
It is for that reason that we shall be supporting the Minister, cheer him on, and wish him success, when he makes his attempt, and because we wish him success, I am offering him this warning as to where opposition will come from. He will encounter opposition when he goes back to officials and says, "You know, I was listening to the debate; and a very lively debate it was". The House of Commons has been at its best at 2 o'clock in the morning, as it so often has been in the greatest days of the House of Commons, which are not exactly these days. So the hon. Gentleman says, "I have been listening to a most entertaining and instructive debate in the House of Commons on that order, and I have discovered that it is not necessary for me to have renewal at all of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act." It will be quite amusing, when the Minister imparts that discovery to his officials, to be a fly on the wall and hear what they have to say. Nevertheless, let the hon. Gentleman harden his heart, for he knows what


nonsense it is to ladle out sums into the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland for alleged capital purposes which nobody can ascertain, let alone disclose.
Perhaps it was a good thing that the extra £200 million was needed. If it had not been needed, or needed so soon, it might not have been possible to put the Minister in the way of questioning the necessity for this whole apparatus. I hope that he has found the debate helpful—which is not what one can always say when expecting the return to the Dispatch Box of the Minister in charge of a Northern Ireland Order in Council.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I listened with great interest to the analysis given by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). As always, he made a great parliamentary speech. I shall have to study it and look into the points that he made. In the meantime, I should like my order today so that at least we can last until March, which will give me time to read the small print and consider where we are.
It is part of the greatness of this House that a Member can challenge the whole of what is being done in any part of our society and raise questions in people's minds. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done tonight. I do not know that I shall agree with him in the morning. I certainly shall not be calling any early morning meetings about the matter. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that many people besides myself, other hon. Members and the officials to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, will be taking microscopes and magnifying glasses to what has been said today.
Clearly no one wishes to intervene after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. We wish to hurry away so as to be fresh to read it in Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On Friday.

Dr. Boyson: I shall be able to read it in Northern Ireland at the weekend with the feeling of the Province upon me. In the meantime, rather humbly after the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Increase of Limit) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Soviet Jewry (Government Policy)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I begin by saying how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to reply to the debate, as I know that this issue is dear to his heart as well as to the hearts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government. I also welcome the presence at this late hour of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the distinguished chairman of the all-party parliamentary committee for the release of Soviet jewry.
The past few weeks have brought a most interesting and welcome improvement in East-West relations. There are signs of reducing confrontation and the hint of the beginning of a period of detente. We are being invited to believe that we in the West can live happily with the Soviet Union and its friends in eastern Europe. The Soviet leaders are seeking to persuade us that if we will trust them sufficiently to scale down our armaments they will respond by scaling down theirs and peace will become enduring. They invite us to believe that they will honour their international undertakings and ask us to trust their declarations of good intentions. They wish us to think only well of them.
Let us look, therefore, not into the crystal ball but at the Soviet Union's record in one area of international undertakings and declarations of good intentions so that we may judge more safely whether the time is ripe to accept that invitation to trust. Let us consider the Soviet Union's record of human rights and focus for a moment on its treatment of its Jews to see whether the Government's policy towards the USSR is unduly harsh and unjustified and ought to be changed.
The Soviet Union's international undertakings on human rights are substantial and impressive. It has ratified nearly all major international conventions on human rights and has associated itself with the principal international declarations. I shall refer to three such obligations.
The first is the right to emigrate. The Soviet Union is a party to the international covenant on civil and political rights, article 12(2) of which states that
everyone has the tight to leave any country, including his own.
Article 5(d) of the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination—of which the Soviet Union is a signatory—accords the same right, as does basket 3 of the Helsinki final act, which, in addition, stipulates that favourable consideration shall especially be given to the reunification of families. The USSR is, of course, a signatory of the final act.
How are those solemn international undertakings on the right to emigration being honoured? In 1979, 51,000 Jews were allowed to leave the Soviet Union for Israel. In 1980 the figure was 21,000, in 1981 it was 9,500, in 1982 it was 2,700, in 1983 it was 1,300. In October 1979, 4,000 Jews were allowed to leave, but only 29 exit visas were granted in October 1984.
The Soviet Government tell the world that no more Jews want to leave mother Russia. The fact is that 400,000 Jews still in the USSR have asked to leave and have received notarised invitations from relatives in Israel but have not received exit permits. Official estimates based on


past experience suggest that there may well be a further half a million who would request the right to emigrate if, following application and refusal, they would not become outcasts.
The pattern is as follows. Application by Jews to leave is followed by dismissal from their jobs because they are considered no longer trustworthy. They are then forced either to take menial work or to become unemployed and risk prosecution as parasites—a process which is itself a breach of convention 29 of the International Labour Organisation's convention against forced or compulsory labour which the USSR has, of course, signed.
There are about 10,000 refuseniks—those who have received over a number of years official notices of refusal to leave and who are willing to confront the Soviet authorities on the issue. They are victimised. Their children are expelled from colleges of higher education. They are subjected to insulting attacks in the media. They are selectively conscripted into the army and often stopped, searched and arrested. They can seek in vain for an effective recourse to the courts for protection. So much for that international undertaking.
Secondly, there is the universal human right to enjoy cultural freedom. The USSR is a signatory of the international covenant on civil and political rights, article 27 of which gives its Jewish minority the right
to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language.
Article 18 also requires that
everyone shall have the right to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, observance, practice and teaching".
Articles 34, 36 and 45 of the Soviet constitution itself prohibit any form of discrimination on the basis of nationality and, together with article 74 of the Russian Republic criminal code, guarantee the use of national languages to the peoples of the USSR. In addition, article 52 of the USSR constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, as does the Soviet ratification of the United Nations declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of dicrimination based on religion or belief.
How does the USSR honour those solemn national and international undertakings on the right to freedom of culture? The study of Hebrew, alone among the minority languages, is banned. Hebrew teachers, when discovered, are threatened with severe punishment if they continue. No Hebrew books are published in the USSR. Virtually no books are published in any language on Jewish history and culture. Today there are fewer than 60 synagogues in the whole USSR, and only five ordained rabbis. Jews are denied the opportunity to train their clergy or issue religious bulletins or periodicals. No Hebrew bible has been published for half a century. Prayer shawls and other religious articles are unobtainable.
Having put a stop to almost all emigration, the Soviet authorities are now attempting to destroy the Jewish community by arresting its leaders and teachers. Yosif Begun, the outstanding campaigner for the right to study Hebrew, received in 1982 a brutal sentence of seven years' imprisonment and five years' internal exile. During 1984, Moshe Abramov, who had been trained as a Rabbi but who refused to accept his rabbinic office because it required him to work for the KGB, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Zakhar Zunshain, a Hebrew teacher of

Riga, received a three-year sentence in June of this year. Yakov Levin, also a Hebrew teacher, of Odessa, received a similar sentence earlier this month. Alexander Kholmiansky, Yakov Nesh, Yuli Edelshtein, Hebrew teachers of Moscow, and Mark Nepomniashy, a Hebrew teacher of Odessa, are all being held incommunicado in prison awaiting trial on charges of alleged serious crimes. These policies are clearly intended to obliterate the historical memory of Soviet Jewry, to destroy its ethnic identity and to force assimilation. So much for that international undertaking.
Thirdly, there is the right to protection against downright racial discrimination—against anti-semitism. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the USSR is a signatory, prohibits
any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
as do most of the other human rights conventions and constitutions to which the USSR is a party. How is that solemn undertaking being honoured? Under the thin disguise of anti-Zionism there have been an increasing number of scurrilous attacks on individual Jews, the Jewish people, Judaism and on the state of Israel. An orchestrated series of newspaper articles in several Soviet republics refer to Hebrew teachers and cultural activists as spies, criminals and traitors. Jewish money, it is said, finances the military arms race in the Western world, Zionists brought Hitler to power and supported Nazism and the state of Israel and Nazi Germany are to be equated. As the Bishop of Birmingham said at a meeting that was recently held in the Palace of Westminster, the Russians have a long and miserable history of anti-semitism and it seems to be getting worse.
The list of the victims of anti-semitic persecution in the past few years alone is long and ugly. Anatoly Shcharansky received 13 years' imprisonment in horrific conditions, Vladimir Slepak and Ida Nudel were sent to Siberia, refused exit visas and harrassed, Victor Brailovsky, Boris Chernobilsky and Dmitry Shchiglik of Moscow, Gregory Geishis, Boris Kalendarev and Yevgeny Lein of Leningrad, Lev Elbert, Kim Fridman, Vladimir Kislik and Valery Pilnikov of Kiev, Osip Lokshin and Vladimir Tsukerman of Kishinev, Aleksander Paritsky of Kharkov, Moisei Tonkonogy of Odessa, Iosif Zisels of Chernovitsy, Aleksander Panaryev of Sukhumi and Aleksander Magidovich of Tula are just some of those who have served terms of imprisonment or exile and are now living under the constant surveillance of the KGB and are still refused permission to leave. These are the Jews in labour camps and psychiatric hospitals and the Jews who are suffering harassment and persecution throughout the USSR.
Refuseniks have told us that if the rehabilitation of Stalin takes place in time for the 40th anniversary of the victory over the Nazis, the anti-semitic campaign could be revitalised and that his plan to transport all Jews to the main centres of Siberia could be put into effect.—"Do not treat this as a fantasy", they implore us, "it is a definite threat to our future safety."
If those are the solemn international undertakings and if that is how the Soviet Union honours those undertakings, the future is indeed grim for the Jews of Russia and for the chances of lasting and genuine detente based on trust of the Soviet Union. The Government's policy of speaking up at every opportunity for the Jews of


the Soviet Union has been beyond reproach. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for his valiant efforts and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the rest of the Government in that regard.
That activity and concern seems to have had little effect on the Soviet Government, however. Must it always be thus? Next month, Mr. Gorbachev will be an honoured guest of this country and the Government. Presumably he is coming to reassure us of his Government's good intentions and to engender trust. Let us hope that he realises that the best way in which his Government can convince us of their good intentions is to show that they are prepared to honour their obligations toward human rights in general and the tragic plight of the Jews in particular.
Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government will not cease to remind Mr. Gorbachev of the very great importance which we in Britain and the West attach to this matter? If we cannot trust the Soviet Union to honour its promises to the weak in its own land, could we ever trust it to honour its promises to the nations of the world which have made themselves weak in the forlorn hope of enduring peace.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for sacrificing some of the limited time available to him to permit me this brief intervention. I congratulate him on securing an opportunity to raise these matters.
We in this House are jealous of the privileges that protect our right to speak freely, without fear and constraint. It is appropriate that on occasion we should use that right to speak for those who are not so fortunate and who are not free to speak for themselves. It is right that national Governments should sometimes be invited to hear views that reflect the voice of the whole international community.
It is easy for any Government to institutionalise repressive practices until they become immunised against them and no longer believe it possible that they may be wrong. That is particularly so of a Government who are not prepared to hear criticism at home. Despite the lateness of the hour, I am grateful for this opportunity of associating myself with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
The fact that the subject has been discussed in the House will, I hope, give some of the more compassionate among those who take decisions in the Soviet Union cause to reflect on what is happening to decent people whose only crime is their wish to make their home where their heart is. I hope that this will serve further to offer them the assurance that they are not alone or forgotten.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The subject that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has chosen for this debate is important, and I am grateful to him for raising it. I pay tribute to both my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the major contribution which, over a number of years, they have made to this very subject.
Since I first became a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I have had special responsibility for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. It has therefore fallen to me on many occasions in my contacts with Ministers from Warsaw Pact countries to raise human rights issues. Naturally enough, when I am speaking to my Soviet opposite numbers, the subject of Soviet Jewry is raised. When I speak on human rights issues, I feel that I can do so with particular authority for three separate reasons.
First, I can do so confident that I am reflecting the views of all sides of this House. There may be many issues on which we are divided, but seeking better observance of human rights in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is not one of them.
Secondly, I know from my own constituency mail, and from the many letters that hon. Members pass to me, that these human rights issues are the subject of a deep and genuine concern among ordinary people. Whether from churches, synagogues or human rights groups, or on occasion simply off their own bat, individuals from all walks of life write to express their concern about the many instances of human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, which are recorded in the press and elsewhere.
Thirdly, I am conscious that by raising these issues I am not unjustifiably interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. The great achievement of the Helsinki Final Act was to put human rights issues firmly on the international agenda. Principle VII of the opening section of the Helsinki Final Act is clear, and says:
participating states will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".
For all that, my Soviet interlocutors claim that raising these issues is unwarranted interference. Their very defensiveness shows that they are aware that, much as they may wish it, it is not possible to go back on the commitments that they made at Helsinki.
It is impossible not to be shocked by the many reported instances of inhumane Soviet behaviour. Yosif Begun was imprisoned last year for teaching Hebrew. Anatoly Shcharansky has been rotting in gaol for more than seven years for getting together with a few like-minded Russians to monitor Soviet observance of the Helsinki Final Act. Many thousands of Soviet Jewish citizens have been deprived of their rights, their jobs and on occasion their freedom merely because they have applied to emigrate. It is not possible not to feel a sense of involvement in the rate of these fellow Europeans.
There are too many examples of draconian administrative acts by the Soviet authorities which are completely disproportionate to the so-called offences for one to embark on a systematic account. The fact is that the reports make it difficult not to conclude that the Soviet authorities are operating a systematic policy of discrimination that verges on oppression and is directed particularly against minority religious groups. It is directed against others apart from the Jewish community but it is that community which is the subject of the debate.
The Jewish community has probably been subject: to more consistent harassment than others, partly because it occupied a more important place in Soviet intellectual and political life. The harassment also applies to Baptists, Catholics and even to Orthodox Christians. Of course, there is carefully sanctioned religious observance in the


Soviet Union, and Soviet representatives are not slow to point this out. There are semi-official figures for the numbers of regular worshippers, for the number of "registered" congregations and of the number of Bibles and prayer books published by the state, for example. But the line is drawn at any religious observance which is not officially sanctioned and, of course, at any challenge to the state's monopoly of power in every detail of Soviet life.
What can we do realistically to show our concern and to encourage more humane practices in the Soviet Union? First, the Government will ensure that the issue of human rights and the Soviet Union's Helsinki and Madrid commitments are kept firmly on the agenda of our ministerial contacts with the Russians. These matters must figure, but that will not be to the exclusion of the many other important matters that we have to discuss with them. We must show that these questions have not been, and will not be, forgotten.
Secondly, as well as mentioning the wider issues, we should on occasion mention individual names of those we are trying to help. At times—and recent years have been such times—this may be without apparent result, but that does not make it worthless. Anatoly Shcharansky may be lying in an inhospitable camp in the Urals, but a telegram has just got through to his wife to let her know where he is and that he is alive. Would this have happened 40 years ago? Certainly it did not happen in the case of Osip Mandelstam, the great Russian Jewish poet of the 1920s and 1930s. Would it have happened if it had not been for the efforts of Mrs. Shcharansky, which have made the name of her husband a household name in the West? To mention someone who is not Jewish, would we have seen the strangely concocted films of Dr. Sakharov and his wife in Gorky if it had not been for the constant mention of his name by Western representatives.
Obviously we have to be selective about names. The names which are chosen must be in some sense representative of categories of human rights abuse. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met Mr. Gromyko in July, he mentioned Father Gleb Yakunin, a Russian Orthodox priest, Dr. Koryagin, a Soviet psychiatrist, Anatoly Shcharansky, whom I have already mentioned, and the Sakharovs. In March this year, I drew the attention of the First Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kornienko, to the cases of Yosif Begun, Ida Nudel, Anatoly Shcharansky and Raoul Wallenberg.
Thirdly, with respect to what can be done, I think that hon. Members themselves can join in this process. The Russians are more in evidence in social and political circles in London these days, which is something that we welcome. This gives hon. Members the opportunity to mention particular cases that have been brought to their attention by constituents when they meet Soviet diplomats. The point can be put over in moderate and reasonable terms. This would help to show that concern about human rights is something which not only the Government are concerned about. This would show that it is the concern of all hon. Members.
A question that is often raised is whether these approaches should be publicised or remain confidential? My experience leads me to believe that what is required is a carefully judged mixture of both. If these matters remain confidential, there will be little public pressure on the Russians for visible improvements. If everything is

done in a blaze of publicity, the Soviet reaction will tend to be not to respond, out of pride and stubbornness. I think that it is right that Ministers should make clear to the House and the press that they have raised human rights issues with Soviet Ministers, but there will be occasions when the specific names mentioned will not be made public. And when we do make names public, we assure ourselves via those most closely connected with the persons concerned that the public mention of their names will not do them harm.
There will always have to be a strong element of coaxing on our approaches. The power we have in our hand is the potent one of example and of persuasion, but it does not go much beyond that. Occasionally, those who are impatient for results and anxious for early progress suggest that some way should be found to force the Russians to behave better—that we should not speak to them until there is a major inprovement in their observance of human rights, or that we should not trade with them. Experience, however, shows that rigid linkage of that kind is an ineffective and unrealistic way of proceeding either in terms of our own interests or in the interests of those we are trying to help.
The successes that have been notched up, and I am thinking for instance of the major increase in the rate of permitted Jewish emigration in the 1970s, have coincided with periods of reduced international tension. We are now experiencing the lowest level of permitted Jewish emigration since the early 1970s. When the Soviet Union feels itself isolated, it has tended to treat its own citizens worse, not better. We should, therefore welcome recent signs of greater willingness on the part of the Russians at least to talk, because it is only through the process of increasing contact and a fuller mutual understanding that we can achieve the sort of East-West confidence that is likely to lead to better relationships and reduced tension. I believe that human rights will, in the long term, be the beneficiary of that.
Meanwhile, over human rights as much as any other part of the East-West agenda, we must show patience and persistence. We must not allow the subject to slip out of sight as relations with the East improve. It is not part of the Government's policy of pursuing better East-West relations to avoid the awkward issues. The Soviet Union's CSCE commitments remain, and we shall continue to remind it that we expect it it live up to these in their entirety. We shall continue to insist that progress must be made on all fronts, not simply selective ones. Advances on security or trade matters must not be at the expense of the human rights commitments. The fact that attention in the CSCE process this year has largely been on the conference on disarmament in Europe in Stockholm will be balanced next year by the undoubted considerable interest in this House and elsewhere in the human rights meeting in Ottawa. The latter will give the West good opportunity to make that principle clear in practice as well as theory.
My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the visit of Mr. Gorbachev to the United Kingdom. We look forward to that, as it is important in our relations with the Soviet Union. He asked me for an assurance that we would raise human rights issues during the visit. It is not our practice to indicate in advance the agenda for such visits. We shall bear in mind the issues that my hon. and learned Friend has raised.
Meanwhile, the Government will continue to plug away at this issue, to press for improvements in Soviet treatment of its Jewish community, and the other minority communities that suffer discrimination of one kind or another. We will do that not only because it is a most important part of the CSCE process that we should do so, and not only because common humanity compels us to do it. We shall continue to explain that the way that the Soviet authorities treat their citizens creates in itself a wider and real problem of trust and understanding in this country. if

they wish us to accept the genuineness of their desire for peace and security, there would be no better earnest of their intentions than to show in the way that they treat their own citizens and especially those who wish to travel or to emigrate that their motives vis-a-vis their neighbours and the West are indeed peaceful and friendly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to three o'clock.